[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11406-11407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04432]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-824]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, Formerly Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) published its 
preliminary results on August 7, 2013.\1\ The period of review is July 
1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. This review covers two mandatory 
respondents, Jindal Poly Films Limited (Jindal) and SRF Limited (SRF), 
and one non-selected respondent, Polyplex Corporation Ltd. (Polyplex). 
For the final results we continue to find that Polyplex and SRF sold 
subject merchandise at less than normal value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from 
India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 2011-2012, 78 FR 48143 (August 7, 2013) (Preliminary 
Results).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: February 28, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni Page, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1398.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On August 7, 2013, the Department published the Preliminary 
Results.\2\ We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary 
Results. Jindal submitted a letter in lieu of a case brief on September 
6, 2013. SRF submitted a case brief on September 20, 2013. Petitioners 
submitted a letter in lieu of a rebuttal brief on October 18, 2013, 
stating that the Department should not alter the differential pricing 
methodology that it used in the Preliminary Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for 
Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion 
to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal 
Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.\3\ Therefore, all 
deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 16 
days. The revised deadline for the final results of this review is now 
February 21, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memorandum for the Record from Paul Piquado, Assistant 
Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ``Deadlines Affected by 
the Shutdown of the Federal Government'' (October 18, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has conducted this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act).

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the antidumping duty order are all gauges 
of raw, pretreated, or primed PET 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 of 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 3920.62.00.90. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the 
antidumping duty order is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list 
of issues that parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The 
Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file 
electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). 
IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov, and 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 and Decision Memorandum can 
be accessed directly on the Internet at http://trade.gov/enforcement/. 
The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions 
of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from 
interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, no changes have 
been made to Jindal's calculations. SRF's preliminary rate in the 
companion countervailing duty administrative review was 2.84 percent; 
\4\ however, its final rate for the companion countervailing duty 
administrative review is 2.64 percent. The entirety of SRF's 
countervailing duty rate is based on export subsidies. Therefore, we 
have adjusted SRF's antidumping duty rate accordingly by the entire 
amount of its countervailing duty rate for these final results.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From 
India: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review; 2011, 78 FR 48147, 48148 (August 7, 2013).
    \5\ See Memorandum to Mark Hoadley, Program Manager ``Analysis 
Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 
Strip from India: SRF Limited, dated concurrently with these final 
results.

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

[[Page 11407]]

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine the following weighted-
average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2011, through June 
30, 2012.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                  Manufacturer/Exporter                   average margin
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jindal Poly Films Limited...............................            0.00
SRF Limited.............................................            0.78
Polyplex Corporation Ltd................................            0.78
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department determines, 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 Jindal, SRF, and Polyplex. The Department will issue 
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of 
the final results of review. For assessment purposes, where the 
respondent 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 dumping duties calculated 
for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same 
sales.\6\ However, where the respondent did not report the entered 
value for its sales, we will 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 per-unit duty assessment rate calculated in the final 
results of this review is above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 
percent). For any individually examined respondents whose weighted-
average dumping margin is above de minimis in these final results, we 
will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based 
on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for 
the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of the sales 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to 
antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is zero or 
de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
    \7\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of PET Film from India 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 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, 5.71 percent. These deposit requirements, 
when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 sanctionable 
violation.
    The Department is issuing and publishing these final results of 
administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 
777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 21, 2014.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Differential Pricing Analysis: Magnitude of the Observed 
Price Differences Ignored.
Comment 2: Differential Pricing Analysis: Inclusion of Both Higher- 
and Lower-Priced Sales.
Comment 3: Differential Pricing Analysis: Results of the Cohen's d 
Test By Purchaser, Region or Time Period Should Be Considered 
Separately.
Comment 4: Differential Pricing Analysis: Results of the Cohen's d 
Test By Time Period Is Flawed.
Comment 5: Differential Pricing Analysis: The Cohen's d Test Does 
Not Measure Causal Links or Statistical Significance But 
Systematically Results in Affirmative Determinations.
Comment 6: Differential Pricing Analysis: Explanation of Why the 
Average-to-Average Method Cannot Account for Such Differences.
Comment 7: The Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions Governing 
Targeted Dumping in Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations.
Comment 8: Use of an Alternative Comparison Method in Administrative 
Reviews.

[FR Doc. 2014-04432 Filed 2-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P