[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35245-35248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13985]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-924]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; 2010-2011

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

SUMMARY: On December 10, 2012, the Department of Commerce 
(``Department'') published its

[[Page 35246]]

Preliminary Results of the third administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and 
strip (``PET film'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'').\1\ 
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary 
Results. After reviewing interested parties' comments and information 
received, we have made changes for the final results of this review. 
The final antidumping duty margins for this review are listed below in 
the ``Final Results of the Review'' section of this notice. The period 
of review (``POR'') is November 1, 2010, through October 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From 
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 
Administrative Review; 2010-2011, 77 FR 73428 (December 10, 2012), 
and accompanying Decision Memorandum (``Preliminary Results'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: June 12, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin or Jonathan Hill, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3936 and (202) 482-3518 respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The Department published the Preliminary Results on December 10, 
2012. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we invited parties 
to comment on our Preliminary Results.\2\ On January 28, 2013, the 
following interested parties filed timely case briefs: Bemis Company, 
Inc., and its affiliate Curwood Inc.; Shaoxing Xiangyu Green Packing 
Co., Ltd. (``Green Packing''); Terphane Inc.; Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd. 
(``Wanhua''),\3\ Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd. (``Fuwei Films''), 
and Sichuan Dongfang Insulating Material Co., Ltd. (``Dongfang'') \4\ 
(collectively, ``Wanhua et al.''); Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc., 
SKC, Inc., and Toray Plastics (America), Inc. (collectively, 
``Petitioners''); DuPont Teijin Films China Limited,\5\ DuPont Hongji 
Films Foshan Co., Ltd., and DuPont Teijin Hongji Films Ningbo Co., Ltd. 
(``DuPont Group''). On February 4, 2013, the following interested 
parties filed timely rebuttal briefs: Terphane Inc., Petitioners, Green 
Packing, DuPont Group, and Wanhua et al.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See id., 77 FR at 73429.
    \3\ In the Preliminary Results, Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd. was 
erroneously referred to in the rate table as ``Tianjin Wanhua Co., 
Ltd. Sichuan'' The correct name of Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd. is shown 
in the rate table in this notice.
    \4\ In the Preliminary Results, Sichuan Dongfang Insulating 
Material Co., Ltd. was erroneously referred to in the rate table as 
``Dongfang Insulating Material Co., Ltd.'' The correct name of 
Sichuan Dongfang Insulating Material Co., Ltd. is shown in the rate 
table in this notice.
    \5\ In the Preliminary Results, DuPont Teijin Films China 
Limited was erroneously referred to in the rate table as ``DuPont 
Teijin China Limited.'' The correct name of DuPont Teijin Films 
China Limited is shown in the rate table in this notice.
    \6\ The Department removed the rebuttal brief of Wanhua et al. 
from the administrative record because it contained untimely filed 
new factual information. The Department permitted the resubmission 
of a redacted version of the rebuttal brief, with the untimely 
factual information removed, on February 12, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties are 
addressed in the ``Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 
from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for 
the Final Results of the 2010-2011 Administrative Review,'' dated 
concurrently with this notice (``Issues & Decision Memo''). A list of 
the issues raised by interested parties is attached to this notice as 
an Appendix. The Issues & Decision Memo is a public document and is on 
file electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (``IA 
ACCESS''). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov, and it is available to all parties in the Central 
Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In 
addition, a complete version of the Issues & Decision Memo can be 
accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia. The 
signed Issues & Decision Memo and the electronic versions of the Issues 
& Decision Memo are identical in content.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are all gauges of raw, pre-
treated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or co-extruded.\7\ PET 
film is classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our 
written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. A full 
description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues & 
Decision Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on the comments received from the interested parties, we have 
made the following changes from the Preliminary Results:
    1. We are including the reported reintroduced PET chip factor of 
production in the DuPont Group's normal value;
    2. We are excluding the DuPont Group's reported billing adjustments 
from the calculation of U.S. net price;
    3. We are correcting a clerical error in the calculation of 
surrogate selling, general, and administrative expenses, interest 
expenses, and profit for the DuPont Group and Green Packing;
    4. Due to the changes in the dumping margins for DuPont Group, the 
rate calculated for the separate rate companies has also changed.
    For a discussion of the issues, see the Issues & Decision Memo.

Non-Market Economy Country

    The PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') in every 
proceeding conducted by the Department. In accordance with section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the ``Act''), any 
determination that a foreign country is an NME shall remain in effect 
until revoked by the administering authority. The Department has not 
revoked the PRC's status as an NME. Therefore, the Department continues 
to treat the PRC as an NME for purposes of these final results and, 
accordingly, applied the NME methodology.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NMEs, the Department maintains a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the NME are subject to 
government control and, therefore, should be assessed a single 
weighted-average dumping margin.\8\ The Department's policy is to 
assign all exporters of merchandise subject to review in an NME country 
this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.\9\ 
The Department analyzes whether each entity exporting the merchandise 
under consideration is sufficiently independent under a test 
established in Sparklers \10\ and further developed in

[[Page 35247]]

Silicon Carbide.\11\ According to this separate rate test, the 
Department will assign a separate rate in NME proceedings if a 
respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto 
government control over its export activities. If, however, the 
Department determines that a company is wholly foreign owned, then a 
separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether that 
company is independent from government control and eligible for a 
separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039, 55040 (September 24, 2008).
    \9\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 
(May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers'').
    \10\ See id.
    \11\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's Republic of China, 59 
FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department found that Dongfang, 
DuPont Group, Green Packing, Fuwei Films, and Wanhua demonstrated their 
eligibility for separate-rate status.\12\ No party commented on these 
preliminary results. For the final results, the Department continues to 
find that the evidence placed on the record of this administrative 
review by Dongfang, DuPont Group, Green Packing, Fuwei Films, and 
Wanhua demonstrate both a de jure and de facto absence of government 
control and, therefore, are eligible for separate-rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Preliminary Results, and accompanying Decision 
Memorandum at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rate for Non-Selected Companies

    The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the 
establishment of a rate to be applied to individual respondents not 
selected for examination when the Department limits its examination in 
an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. 
Generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which 
provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an 
investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents 
which we did not examine in an administrative review. Section 
735(c)(5)(A) of the Act articulates a preference that we are not to 
calculate an all-others rate using rates which are zero, de minimis, or 
based entirely on facts available. Accordingly, the Department's usual 
practice has been to average the weighted-average dumping margins for 
the selected companies, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or 
based entirely on facts available.\13\ Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act 
also provides that, where all rates are zero, de minimis, or based 
entirely on facts available, we may use ``any reasonable method'' for 
assigning the all-others rate, including ``averaging the estimated 
weighted-average dumping margins determined for the exporters and 
producers individually investigated.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, 
Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews in Part, 73 FR 
52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this instance, consistent with our practice, we have established 
a margin for the separate rate applicants based on the rate we 
calculated for the mandatory respondents whose rates were not zero, de 
minimis, or based entirely on facts available. Therefore, for the final 
results, we have excluded Green Packing's rate, and assigned DuPont's 
rate as the separate rate, i.e., 12.80 percent.

Surrogate Country

    In the Preliminary Results, we treated the PRC as an NME country 
and, therefore, we calculated normal value in accordance with section 
773(c) of the Act. We selected Indonesia as the surrogate country, 
pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, because it is a significant 
producer of merchandise comparable to subject merchandise and is at a 
level of economic development comparable to the PRC.\14\ For the final 
results of review, we have continued to treat the PRC as an NME country 
and have used the same primary surrogate country, Indonesia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Preliminary Results, and accompanying Decision 
Memorandum at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Results of the Review

    The dumping margins for the POR are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted--average
                       Exporter                          dumping margin
                                                           (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DuPont Teijin Films China Limited....................           12.80
Shaoxing Xiangyu Green Packing Co., Ltd..............            0.00
Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd......................           12.80
Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd..............................           12.80
Sichuan Dongfang Insulating Material Co., Ltd........           12.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Consistent with these final results, and pursuant to section 
751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will 
direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in 
accordance with the final results of this review. The Department 
intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date 
of publication of the final results of review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), the Department will calculate importer (or customer) -
specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the 
dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered 
value of those same sales.\15\ The Department will instruct CBP to 
assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this 
review if any importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In these final results, the Department applied the 
assessment rate calculation method adopted in Antidumping 
Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and 
Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final 
Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department recently announced a refinement to its assessment 
practice in NME cases. Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for 
entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by 
companies individually examined during this review, the Department will 
instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the NME-wide rate. In 
addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review 
had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that 
entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's 
rate) will be liquidated at the NME-wide rate.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment 
of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporter 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be 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 for that 
company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC 
exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit 
rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the 
most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise 
which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash 
deposit rate will be that for the PRC-wide entity; and (4) for all non-
PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own 
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC 
exporter that supplied that non-PRC

[[Page 35248]]

exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until further notice.

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Notification to Importers Regarding The Reimbursement of Duties

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which 
continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of 
the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or 
destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective 
order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and 
terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice 
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: June 5, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--Issues & Decision Memorandum

I. General Issues

Issue 1: Respondent Selection
Issue 2: Surrogate Country Selection
Issue 3: Calculation of the Surrogate Financial Ratios
Issue 4: Calculation of a Separate Rate

II. Company-Specific Issues

Issue 5: Treatment of the DuPont Group's Reintroduced PET Chip
Issue 6: Calculation of the DuPont Group's U.S. Indirect Selling 
Ratio
Issue 7: Calculation of the DuPont Group's Foreign Brokerage and 
Handling Expenses
Issue 8: Calculation of the DuPont Group's Margin Using the Average-
to-Transaction Method
Issue 9: The DuPont Group's Billing Adjustments
Issue 10: Green Packing's By-Product Offsets
Issue 11: Assessment Rate to Curwood

[FR Doc. 2013-13985 Filed 6-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P