[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 65 (Monday, April 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18376-18382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07830]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-861, A-570-024, A-122-855, A-523-810]


Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From Canada, the 
People's Republic of China, India, and the Sultanate of Oman: 
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

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

DATES: Effective April 6, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karine Gziryan or James Martinelli at 
(202) 482-4081 and (202) 482-2923, respectively (Canada), Tyler 
Weinhold at (202) 482-1121 (the People's Republic of China (PRC)); Fred 
Baker at (202) 482-2924 (India); or Magd Zalok at (202) 482-4162 (the 
Sultanate of Oman (Oman)), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and 
Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petitions

    On March 10, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of certain 
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from Canada, India, the PRC, and 
Oman filed in proper form on behalf of DAK Americas, LLC, M&G 
Chemicals, and Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America (Petitioners).\1\ 
The AD petitions were accompanied by three countervailing duty (CVD) 
petitions.\2\ Petitioners are domestic producers of PET resin.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Imports of Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from Canada, the 
People's Republic of China, India, and the Sultanate of Oman, dated 
March 10, 2015 (the Petitions).
    \2\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on 
Imports of Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the 
People's Republic of China, India, and the Sultanate of Oman, dated 
March 10, 2015
    \3\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 1, 4, and Exhibit GEN-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 13, 2015, and March 19, 2015, the Department requested 
additional information and clarification of certain areas of the 
Petitions.\4\ Petitioners filed responses to these requests on March 
18, 2015,\5\ March 19, 2015,\6\ March 20, 2015,\7\ and March 24, 
2015.\8\ Petitioners filed a revised scope on March 24, 2015, and March 
27, 2015.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Letter from the Department to Petitioners entitled ``Re: 
Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of 
Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from Canada, the People's 
Republic of China, India, and the Sultanate of Oman, and 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Resin from the People's Republic of China, India, and 
the Sultanate of Oman: Supplemental Questions'' dated March 13, 2015 
(General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire), and Letters from the 
Department to Petitioners entitled ``Re: Petition for the Imposition 
of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Resin from {country{time} : Supplemental Questions'' 
on each of the country-specific records, dated March 13, 2015.
    \5\ See Supplement to the Canada Petition, dated March 18, 2015 
(Canada Supplement); Supplement to the PRC AD Petition, dated March 
18, 2015 (PRC AD Supplement); Supplement to the India AD Petition, 
dated March 18, 2015 (India AD Supplement); Supplement to the Oman 
AD Petition, dated March 18, 2015 (Oman AD Supplement).
    \6\ See General Issues Supplement to the Petitions, dated March 
19, 2015 (General Issues Supplement).
    \7\ See Second Supplement to the Canada Petition, dated March 
20, 2015 (Second Canada Supplement); Second Supplement to the PRC AD 
Petition, dated March 20, 2015 (Second PRC AD Supplement).
    \8\ See Second Supplement to the India AD Petition, dated March 
24, 2015 (Second India AD Supplement); Second Supplement to the Oman 
AD Petition, dated March 24, 2015 (Second Oman AD Supplement).
    \9\ See Scope Supplement to the Petitions, dated March 24, 2015 
(Scope Supplement); and Second Scope Supplement to the Petitions, 
dated March 27, 2015 (Second Scope Supplement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), Petitioners allege that imports of PET resin from 
Canada, the PRC, India, and Oman are being, or are likely to be, sold 
in the United States at less-than-fair value within the meaning of 
section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, 
or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. 
Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are 
accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioners 
supporting their allegations.
    The Department finds that Petitioners filed these Petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested 
parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also 
finds that Petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with 
respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that Petitioners are 
requesting.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petitions'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Periods of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on March 10, 2015, the periods of 
investigation (POI) are, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), as follows: 
January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, for Canada, India, and 
Oman, and July 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, for the PRC.

Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is PET resin from 
Canada, the PRC, India, and Oman. For a full description of the scope 
of these investigations, see the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in 
Appendix I of this notice.

Comments on Scope of the Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions 
to, and received responses from, Petitioners pertaining to the proposed 
scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an 
accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is 
seeking relief.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see also 
General Issues Supplement and Scope Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we 
are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage (scope). The period for scope comments is 
intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider 
all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the 
preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual 
information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information 
should be limited to public information. All such comments must be 
filed by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on Monday, April 20, 
2015, which is 21 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. 
Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be 
filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Thursday, April 30,

[[Page 18377]]

2015, which is 10 calendar days after the initial comments.
    The Department requests that any factual information the parties 
consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted 
during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that 
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the 
investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department 
and request permission to submit the additional information. All such 
comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and 
CVD investigations.

Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically 
using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\12\ An electronically 
filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the 
time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic 
submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) 
with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by 
the applicable deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order 
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the 
Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect 
on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at 
https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at 
https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires

    The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding 
the appropriate physical characteristics of PET resin to be reported in 
response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will 
be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject 
merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and costs of 
production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-
comparison criteria.
    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that 
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of 
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to 
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product 
characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is 
not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-
comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful 
commercial differences among products. In other words, although there 
may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers 
to describe PET resin, it may be that only a select few product 
characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical 
characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the 
order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching 
products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important 
physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics 
last.
    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in 
developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all comments must be 
filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Monday, April 20, 2015, which is 21 calendar 
days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must 
be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Monday, April 27, 2015. All comments and 
submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using 
ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of the Canada, the PRC, 
India, and Oman less-than-fair-value investigations.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department 
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method to poll the ``industry.''
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which 
is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has 
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and 
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product,\13\ they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a 
separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's 
determination is subject to limitations of time and information. 
Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, 
such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary 
to law.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \14\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
Petitions).
    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer 
a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of 
the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted 
on the record, we have determined that PET resin constitutes a single 
domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of 
that domestic like product.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in 
this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from Canada (Canada AD 
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry 
Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 
Covering Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from Canada, the 
People's Republic of China, India, and the Sultanate of Oman 
(Attachment II); Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC AD Initiation Checklist), at 
Attachment II; Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India (India AD 
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; and Antidumping Duty 
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Resin from the Sultanate of Oman (Oman AD Initiation 
Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists are dated 
concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. 
Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the 
Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce 
building.

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

[[Page 18378]]

    In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in Appendix I of 
this notice. Petitioners provided their own production of the domestic 
like product in 2014.\16\ In addition, Petitioners estimated the total 
2014 production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic 
industry.\17\ To establish industry support, Petitioners compared their 
own production to total production of the domestic like product for the 
entire domestic industry.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit GEN-1.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id. For further discussion, see Canada AD Initiation 
Checklist, PRC AD Initiation Checklist, India AD Initiation 
Checklist, and Oman AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, supplemental 
submission, and other information readily available to the Department 
indicates that Petitioners have established industry support.\19\ 
First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or 
workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of 
the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required 
to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 
polling).\20\ Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the 
statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) 
of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the 
Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of 
the domestic like product.\21\ Finally, the domestic producers (or 
workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under 
section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or 
workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of 
the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of 
the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the 
Petitions.\22\ Accordingly, the Department determines that the 
Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the 
meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, PRC AD Initiation 
Checklist, India AD Initiation Checklist, and Oman AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \20\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Canada AD 
Initiation Checklist, PRC AD Initiation Checklist, India AD 
Initiation Checklist, and Oman AD Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment II.
    \21\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, PRC AD Initiation 
Checklist, India AD Initiation Checklist, and Oman AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf 
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined 
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the AD investigations that they are 
requesting the Department initiate.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise 
sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, Petitioners allege 
that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for 
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\24\ Petitioners contend that the 
industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; 
underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and 
revenues; declining U.S. shipment and production trends and low 
capacity utilization rates; decline in production-related workers; and 
decline in financial performance.\25\ We have assessed the allegations 
and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material 
injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations 
are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory 
requirements for initiation.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 12-13 and Exhibit GEN-7; 
see also General Issues Supplement, Attachment 1, at 7.
    \25\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 10, 12-21 and Exhibits 
GEN-4 and GEN-7 through GEN-11; see also General Issues Supplement, 
cover letter, at 2, Attachment 1, at 7, and Attachment 2, at Exhibit 
GEN-S9.
    \26\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, PRC AD Initiation 
Checklist, India AD Initiation Checklist, and Oman AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence 
of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Resin from Canada, the People's Republic of China, 
India, and the Sultanate of Oman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less-
than-fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate investigations of imports of PET resin from Canada, the PRC, 
India, and Oman. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments 
relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the 
country-specific initiation checklists.

Export Price

    For India, Petitioners based EP on the average unit value (AUV) of 
imports from India under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (HTSUS) subheading 3907.60.0030 (which covers the subject 
merchandise), using import statistics obtained from the ITC's Dataweb 
for the period of January-December 2014 (i.e., the prospective 
POI).\27\ Because the AUV represents free-on-board (FOB) India port 
terms, Petitioners made deductions from U.S. price for foreign movement 
expenses.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See India AD Initiation Checklist.
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the PRC, Petitioners based EP on sales/offers for sale to U.S. 
customers from producers/exporters in the PRC. Petitioners made 
deductions from U.S. price for movement expenses and un-rebated Value 
Added Tax, consistent with the delivery terms. Petitioners also 
deducted from U.S. price trading company/reseller selling expenses 
estimated using the financial statements of a U.S. distributor of 
chemical and plastic products.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Constructed Export Price

    For Canada and Oman, Petitioners calculated constructed export 
price (CEP) based on offers for sales of PET resin from producers of 
subject merchandise produced in, and exported from, the subject 
country. Petitioners contend that these price quotes should be 
considered CEP sales based on information that indicates the producers 
in these subject countries likely conducted the sales through their 
respective sales offices located in the United States. Petitioners made 
deductions for movement and other expenses consistent with the sales 
and delivery terms of the applicable price. Petitioners also deducted 
U.S. selling expenses estimated using the financial statements of a 
U.S. distributor of chemical and plastic products.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist and Oman AD Initiation 
Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    For Canada, Petitioners alleged that sales of PET resin in Canada 
were made at prices substantially below the cost of production 
(COP).\31\ For India and Oman, Petitioners attempted to obtain home 
market prices, but were unable to demonstrate the home market pricing 
information they obtained was for PET

[[Page 18379]]

resin offered for sale in and produced in India and Oman, respectively. 
Petitioners also provided PET resin prices for the two countries' 
largest third-country export markets and alleged that those third 
country prices are below the COP.\32\ The largest third-country markets 
for India and Oman were Bangladesh and Belgium, respectively. The 
prices Petitioners submitted for these countries were derived from the 
Global Trade Atlas (GTA), and were for an Indian and Omani HTS 
subheading under which PET resin was exported.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist.
    \32\ See India AD Initiation Checklist and Oman AD Initiation 
Checklist.
    \33\ See Second India AD Supplement, at AD Exhibit I-SS4b; 
Second Oman AD Supplement, at AD Exhibit O-SS12b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sales-Below-Cost Allegation

    Petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that sales of PET resin in the Canadian market 
and certain third-country sales made by Indian and Omani producers were 
made at prices below the COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of 
the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a country-wide 
sales-below-cost investigation of PET resin imports from Canada, India, 
and Oman.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist; India AD Initiation 
Checklist; and Oman AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to sales-below-cost allegations in the context of 
investigations, the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act states that an allegation 
of sales below COP need not be specific to individual exporters or 
producers.\35\ The SAA states further that ``Commerce will consider 
allegations of below-cost sales in the aggregate for a foreign country 
. . . on a country-wide basis for purposes of initiating an antidumping 
investigation.'' \36\ Consequently, the Department intends to consider 
Petitioners' allegations on a country-wide basis for each respective 
country for purposes of this initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, at 833 (1994).
    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the SAA provides that section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act 
retains the requirement that the Department have ``reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that below-cost sales have occurred before 
initiating such an investigation.'' \37\ ``Reasonable grounds'' will 
exist when an interested party provides specific factual information on 
costs and prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the 
foreign market in question are at below-cost prices.\38\ As explained 
in the ``Cost of Production'' section below, we find reasonable grounds 
exist that indicate home market sales in Canada and third-country sales 
made by producers in India and Oman were made at below-cost prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost of Production

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost 
of manufacturing (COM); selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) 
expenses; and packing expenses.
    For Canada, Petitioners calculated COM (except for depreciation) 
based on the weighted-average of the U.S. producers' experience 
adjusted for known differences between the United States and Canada, 
during the proposed POI. Petitioners multiplied the weighted-average of 
their respective usage by publicly-available data to value all of the 
significant inputs used to manufacture PET resin in Canada.\39\ For 
other inputs in Canada, Petitioners multiplied the weighted-average of 
their respective usage rates by their own cost experience to value the 
input's cost. To determine depreciation, SG&A, and financial expense 
rates, Petitioners relied on financial statements of a producer of 
comparable merchandise (plastics, such as specialized polyethylene 
resin) in Canada.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist.
    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For India, Petitioners calculated COM (except for manufacturing 
overhead) based on the weighted-average of the U.S. producers' 
experience adjusted for known differences between the United States and 
India, during the proposed POI. Petitioners multiplied the weighted-
average of their respective usage by publicly-available data to value 
all of the significant inputs used to manufacture PET resin in 
India.\41\ To determine manufacturing overhead, SG&A, and financial 
expense rates, Petitioners relied on financial statements of producers 
of PET resin in India.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist; India AD Initiation 
Checklist; Oman AD Initiation Checklist.
    \42\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist; Oman AD Initiation 
Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Oman, Petitioners calculated COM (except for manufacturing 
overhead) based on the weighted-average of the U.S. producers' 
experience adjusted for known differences between the United States and 
Oman, during the proposed POI. Petitioners multiplied the weighted-
average of their respective usage by publicly-available data to value 
all of the significant inputs used to manufacture PET resin in 
Oman.\43\ For other inputs in Oman, Petitioners multiplied the 
weighted-average of their respective usage rates by their own cost 
experience to value the inputs' cost. To determine depreciation, SG&A, 
and financial expense rates, Petitioners relied on financial statements 
of a producer of comparable merchandise (plastic) in Oman.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist; India AD Initiation 
Checklist; Oman AD Initiation Checklist.
    \44\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist; Oman AD Initiation 
Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners obtained a price for a home market sale/offer for sale 
of PET resin by the only known producer of PET resin in Canada.\45\ For 
India and Oman, Petitioners attempted to obtain home market prices. 
Because Petitioners were unable to demonstrate that the home market 
pricing information was for PET resin offered for sale in and produced 
in India and Oman, respectively, we are relying on the prices provided 
by Petitioners for the two countries' respective largest third-country 
export markets.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist.
    \46\ See India AD Initiation Checklist; Oman AD Initiation 
Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Canada and India, Petitioners made deductions for domestic 
inland freight and packing for purposes of comparing the respective 
prices to COP. For Oman, Petitioners made adjustments for Oman inland 
freight, ocean freight, insurance, and packing to calculate net third-
country price for purposes of comparing the price to COP.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, India AD Initiation 
Checklist; Oman AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon a comparison of the ex-factory price of the foreign like 
product in the respective comparison markets to the COP of the product 
for Canada, India and Oman, we find reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that sales of the foreign like product in the respective 
comparison markets were made below the COP, within the meaning of 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(I) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is 
initiating country-wide cost investigations relating to sales of PET 
resin in Canada and in Oman's and India's third-country markets (i.e., 
Belgium and Bangladesh, respectively).

Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    For Canada, because they alleged sales below cost, pursuant to 
sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, Petitioners 
calculated NV based on constructed value (CV). Petitioners calculated 
CV using the same average

[[Page 18380]]

COM, SG&A, financial, and packing expenses used to calculate COP. 
Petitioners relied on the same financial statements used as a basis for 
manufacturing overhead, SG&A, and financial expenses to calculate the 
profit rate.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For India, because they alleged sales below cost, pursuant to 
sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, Petitioners 
calculated NV based on CV. Petitioners calculated CV using the same 
average COM, SG&A, financial, and packing expenses used to calculate 
COP. Petitioners relied on the same financial statements used as a 
basis for manufacturing overhead, SG&A, and financial expenses to 
calculate the profit rate.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Oman, because they alleged sales below cost, pursuant to 
sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, Petitioners 
calculated NV based on CV. Petitioners calculated CV using the same 
average COM, SG&A, financial, and packing expenses used to calculate 
COP. Petitioners relied on the same financial statements used as a 
basis for manufacturing overhead, SG&A, and financial expenses to 
calculate the profit rate.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value Based on Factors of Production

    With respect to the PRC, Petitioners assert that the Department has 
long treated the PRC as a non-market-economy (NME) country.\51\ In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of 
NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. As the 
presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the 
Department, it remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of the 
investigation of PET resin from the PRC. Accordingly, the NV of the 
product is appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs), valued 
in a surrogate market-economy country in accordance with section 773(c) 
of the Act. In the course of this investigation, all parties, including 
the public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant information 
related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of 
separate rates to individual exporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See Volume II-B of the Petition, at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners state that South Africa is an appropriate surrogate 
country because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the PRC, it is a significant producer 
of identical merchandise, and the data for valuing FOPs are both 
available and reliable.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Id. at 9-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the information provided by Petitioners, we believe it is 
appropriate to use South Africa as a surrogate country for initiation 
purposes. Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit 
comments regarding surrogate-country selection and will be provided an 
opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs 
within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary 
determination.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factors of Production

    Petitioners based the FOPs for materials, labor, and energy on the 
petitioning U.S. producers' consumption rates for producing certain PET 
resin as they did not have access to the consumption rates of PRC 
producers of PET resin.\54\ Petitioners valued the estimated factors of 
production using surrogate values from South Africa.\55\ Where it was 
necessary to rely on surrogate value data from a period preceding the 
POI, Petitioners inflated such values to reflect current prices using 
the consumer price inflation index (CPI) data for South Africa 
published by the IMF.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See Volume II-B of the Petition, at 11 and AD Exhibit B; 
see also PRC AD Supplement, at 5-6.
    \55\ See Volume II-B of the Petition, at 11 and AD Exhibit PRC-
15; see also PRC AD Supplement at AD Exhibit PRC-S15.
    \56\ See Volume II-B of the Petition, at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Raw Materials

    For the PRC producer's costs of direct materials Purified 
Terephthalic Acid (PTA) and Mono-Ethyline Glycol (MEG), the major input 
raw materials used to produce the subject merchandise, Petitioners 
relied upon South African import statistics for Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (HTS) 2917.36 and HTS 2905.31, respectively, for the period 
July through December 2014, published by GTA. These values were 
reported on a FOB basis at the port of exit of South Africa's trading 
partners.\57\ Petitioners therefore added the average South African 
inland freight charges reported for importing goods into South Africa 
reported in Doing Business 2015: South Africa, published by the World 
Bank, and average ocean freight based on public quotes for the POI from 
Maersk.\58\ In its calculations of surrogate values based on these 
data, Petitioners excluded all import data from countries previously 
determined by the Department to maintain broadly available, non-
industry-specific export subsidies and from countries previously 
determined by the Department to be NME countries. In addition, in 
accordance with the Department's practice, the average import value 
excludes imports that were labeled as originating from an unidentified 
country.\59\ For certain other minor inputs (i.e., additives, which 
Petitioners claim are proprietary from producer to producer) 
Petitioners did not value such inputs, as a conservative measure.\60\ 
Petitioners valued recoverable PET resin scrap using South African 
imports of plastic waste and scrap under HTS 3915.90.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See Volume II-B of the Petition, at 12 and AD Exhibit PRC-
11.
    \58\ See Volume II-B of the Petition, at 12 and AD PRC-Exhibit 
11; see also PRC AD Supplement, at 8 and AD Exhibit PRC-S11.
    \59\ See Volume II-B of the Petition, at 12 and AD Exhibit PRC-
11.
    \60\ See PRC AD Supplement, at 9 and AD Exhibit PRC-S15.
    \61\ See Volume II-B of the Petitions, at 12 and AD Exhibit PRC-
11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Energy and Water

    Petitioners used public information, as compiled by Eskom (a South 
African electricity public utiliy), to value electricity.\62\ The cost 
of natural gas in South Africa was calculated from the average unit 
value of imports of liquid natural gas for the period.\63\ Using 
universal conversion factors, Petitioners converted that cost to an 
equivalent U.S. $2.59 per mmbtu of natural gas.\64\ For purchased 
steam, Petitioners calculated a price of $19.74/short ton by 
multiplying the natural gas cost of $135.95/per short ton by 0.1452, a 
conversion factor previously used by the Department when benchmarking 
steam to the price of natural gas.\65\ For water, Petitioners used data 
compiled by Statistics South Africa.\66\ For certain other minor energy 
inputs consumed by the petitioning U.S. producers, Petitioners did not 
provide a surrogate value, as a conservative measure.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See Volume II-B of the Petitions, at 13 and AD Exhibit PRC-
12A.
    \63\ See Volume II-B of the Petitions, at 13 and AD Exhibit PRC-
12B.
    \64\ See Volume II-B of the Petitions, at 13 and footnote 14.
    \65\ See Volume II-B of the Petitions, at 13 and AD Exhibit PRC-
12C.
    \66\ See Volume II-B of the Petitions, at 14 and AD Exhibit PRC-
12D.
    \67\ See PRC AD Supplement, at 9 and AD Exhibit PRC-S15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Labor

    Petitioners calculated labor for PET resin using industry-specific 
wage rates for South Africa from LABORSTA, a labor database compiled by 
the International Labor Organization. Petitioners adjusted this value 
for

[[Page 18381]]

inflation to 71.26 Rand per hour in the POI.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See Volume II-B of the Petitions, at 14 and AD Exhibit PRC-
13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative 
Expenses, and Profit

    Petitioners calculated surrogate financial ratios (i.e., 
manufacturing overhead, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) 
expenses, and profit) using the 2012-2013 audited, consolidated 
financial statement of KAP Industrial Holdings, Ltd. (KAP), a South 
African producer of identifical merchandise (PET resin).\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See Volume II-B of the Petitions, at 10, 15 to 16 and AD 
Exhibit PRC-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Packing Expenses

    Petitioners used the average petitioning U.S. producers' unit 
consumption of export packing materials reported and valued those 
materials using surrogate values for packing.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See Volume II-B of the Petitions, at 15 and AD Exhibit PRC-
11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of PET resin from Canada, the PRC, India, and Oman 
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-
fair value. Based on comparisons of EP or CEP to NV in accordance with 
section 773(a) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin(s) for PET 
resin from: (1) Canada range from 96.30 to 102.99 percent; \71\ (2) 
India is 19.41 percent; \72\ (3) Oman range from 116.91 to 120.05 
percent.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist.
    \72\ See India AD Initiation Checklist.
    \73\ See Oman AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on comparisons of EP to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) 
of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for PET resin from the PRC 
range from 193.48 to 206.42 percent.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions on PET resin from 
Canada, the PRC, India, and Oman, we find that the Petitions meet the 
requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD 
investigations to determine whether imports of PET resin from Canada, 
the PRC, India, and Oman are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 
United States at less-than-fair value. In accordance with section 
733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we 
will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after 
the date of this initiation.

Respondent Selection

    Petitioners named one company from Canada, 35 companies from the 
PRC, 13 companies from India, and one company from Oman, as producers/
exporters of PET resin.\75\ Although the Department normally relies on 
import data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to select a 
limited number of producers/exporters for individual examination in AD 
investigations, the Petitions for Canada and Oman name only one company 
as a producer/exporter. Furthermore, we currently know of no additional 
producers/exporters of subject merchandise from Canada or Oman. 
Accordingly, the Department intends to examine all known producers/
exporters in the investigations for Canada and Oman (i.e., the company 
identified in the respective Petitions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See the Volume I of the Petitions, at 10 and Exhibit GEN-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We invite interested parties to comment on this issue. Parties 
wishing to comment must do so within five days of the publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register. Comments must be filed 
electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be 
received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic 
records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. EDT by the date noted above.
    However, for India, because Petitioners identified 13 companies as 
potential respondents, we intend to follow our standard practice in AD 
investigations involving market-economy countries, and select 
respondents based on CBP data for U.S. imports of PET resin under HTSUS 
subheading 3907.60.0030. We also intend to release CBP data under 
Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to 
information protected by APO within five-business days of publication 
of this Federal Register notice, and to invite comments regarding 
respondent selection within seven days of publication of this Federal 
Register notice.
    With respect to the PRC, in accordance with our standard practice 
for respondent selection in cases involving NME countries, we intend to 
issue quantity-and-value (Q&V) questionnaires to each potential 
respondent and base respondent selection on the responses received. In 
addition, the Department will post the Q&V questionnaire along with 
filing instructions on the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at 
http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.
    Exporters/producers of PET resin from the PRC that do not receive 
Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V 
questionnaire and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement and Compliance 
Web site. The Q&V response must be submitted by all PRC exporters/
producers no later than April 13, 2015, which is two weeks from the 
signature date of this notice. All Q&V responses must be filed 
electronically via ACCESS.

Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, 
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.\76\ 
The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in 
the PRC investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, 
which is available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate 
application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation 
notice.\77\ Exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate 
application and have been selected as mandatory respondents will be 
eligible for consideration for separate-rate status only if they 
respond to all parts of the Department's AD questionnaire as mandatory 
respondents. The Department requires that respondents from the PRC 
submit a response to both the Q&V questionnaire and the separate-rate 
application by their respective deadlines in order to receive 
consideration for separate-rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin 
05.1).
    \77\ Although in past investigations this deadline was 60 days, 
consistent with section 351.301 (a) of the Department's regulations, 
which states that ``the Secretary may request any person to submit 
factual information at any time during a proceeding,'' this deadline 
is now 30 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Combination Rates

    The Department will calculate combination rates for certain 
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME 
investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin 
states:

    {w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate 
rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will 
now assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those 
producers that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the 
exporter and all of the producers which

[[Page 18382]]

supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of 
investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents 
receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the 
pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the 
individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the 
application of ``combination rates'' because such rates apply to 
specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The 
cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to 
merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a 
firm that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been 
provided to the governments of Canada, the PRC, India, and Oman via 
ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of 
the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the 
Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date 
on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of PET resin from Canada, the PRC, India, and/
or Oman are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a 
U.S. industry.\79\ A negative ITC determination for any country will 
result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that 
country; \80\ otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to 
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
    \80\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) 
Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence 
submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available 
information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the 
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence 
placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than 
factual information described in (i)-(iv). The regulation requires any 
party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which 
subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 
and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct 
factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation 
identifying the information already on the record that the factual 
information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the 
submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, 
which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual 
information being submitted. Please review the regulations prior to 
submitting factual information in these investigations.

New Section Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the 
expiration of a time limit established under Part 351, or as otherwise 
specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be 
considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time 
limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions that are due 
from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be 
considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. 
Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time 
limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for 
submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such 
a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting 
forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension 
requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request 
must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited 
circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension 
of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 
57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual 
information in this segment.

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\81\ 
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are 
in effect for company/government officials, as well as their 
representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions 
filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD 
proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the 
formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final 
Rule.\82\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \82\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import 
Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also 
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the 
Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations 
should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures 
(e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 
351.103(d)).
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: March 30, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I

Scope of the Investigations

    The merchandise covered by these investigations is polyethylene 
terephthalate (PET) resin having an intrinsic viscosity of at least 
0.70, but not more than 0.88, deciliters per gram. The scope 
includes blends of virgin PET resin and recycled PET resin 
containing 50 percent or more virgin PET resin content by weight, 
provided such blends meet the intrinsic viscosity requirements 
above. The scope includes all PET resin meeting the above 
specifications regardless of additives introduced in the 
manufacturing process.
    The merchandise subject to these investigations is properly 
classified under subheading 3907.60.00.30 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading 
is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2015-07830 Filed 4-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P