[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7753-7755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03082]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-533-825]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2013

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

SUMMARY: On August 6, 2015, the Department published the preliminary 
results of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order 
on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from 
India.\1\ The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2013, through 
December 31, 2013.\2\ Based on an analysis of the comments received, 
the Department has made changes to the subsidy rate determined for 
Jindal Poly Films Limited (Jindal). The final subsidy rates are listed 
in the ``Final Results of Administrative Review'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From 
India: Preliminary Results And Partial Rescission of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review; 2013, 80 FR 46956 (August 6, 2015) 
(Preliminary Results 2013).
    \2\ As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant 
Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, the Department has exercised 
its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the 
recent closure of the Federal Government. All deadlines in this 
segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. 
The revised deadline for the final results of this review is now 
February 8, 2016. See Memorandum to the Record from Ron Lorentzen, 
Acting A/S for Enforcement & Compliance, regarding ``Tolling of 
Adminstrative Deadlines as a Result of the Government Closure During 
Snowstorm Jonas,'' dated January 27, 2016.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective date: February 16, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi Blum, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
VII, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-0197.

Scope of the Order

    For the purposes of the order, the products covered are all gauges 
of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet 
and strip, 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 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 order is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    The issues raised by Petitioners \3\ and Jindal in their case 
briefs, and Petitioners' rebuttal brief, are addressed in the Issues 
and Decision Memorandum.\4\ The issues are

[[Page 7754]]

identified in the Appendix to this notice. 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 (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to 
registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records 
Unit, Room B8024 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/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and 
electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical 
in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ DuPont Teijin Films, Inc., Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc. 
and SKC, Inc. (collectively, ``Petitioners'').
    \4\ See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to 
Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, 
``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India; 2013,'' dated 
concurrently with this notice and herein incorporated by reference 
(Issues and Decision Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on the comments received from Petitioners and Jindal, we 
adjusted the numerators used in Jindal's subsidy rate calculations for 
the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) and the Duty Drawback 
(DDB) programs. For a discussion of these issues, see the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum and Memorandum to the File from Elfi Page, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, titled ``Final Results of 2013 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate 
Film, Sheet, and Strip from India-Jindal Polyfilms Limited,'' each 
dated concurrently with these final results.

Methodology

    The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 
751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each 
of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we find that there is a 
subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives 
rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is 
specific.\5\ For a description of the methodology underlying all of the 
Department's conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding 
financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding 
benefit; and, section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Companies Not Selected for Individual Review

    For the companies not selected for individual review (Ester, 
Garware, Polyplex, Vacmet, and Vacmet India Limited), because the rates 
calculated for Jindal and SRF were above de minimis and not based 
entirely on facts available, we applied a subsidy rate based on a 
weighted average of the subsidy rates calculated for Jindal and SRF 
using publicly ranged sales data submitted by respondents.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The statute and the Department's regulations do not directly 
address the establishment of rates to be applied to companies not 
selected for individual examination where the Department limited its 
examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 
777A(e)(2) of the Act. However, the Department normally determines 
the rates for non-selected companies in reviews in a manner that is 
consistent with section 705(c)(5) of the Act, which provides 
instructions for calculating the all others rate in an 
investigation. Section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs the 
Department to calculate an all others rate using the weighted 
average of the subsidy rates established for the producers/exporters 
individually examined, excluding any zero, de minimis, or facts 
available rates. In this review, calculating the non-selected rate 
by weight averaging Jindal's and SRF's rates risks disclosure of 
proprietary information. Therefore, we calculated the rate for the 
non-selected companies by weight averaging the rates of Jindal and 
SRF using publicly-ranged sales data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Results of Administrative Review

    In accordance with section 777A(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.221(b)(5), we determine the total estimated net countervailable 
subsidy rates for the period January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013 
to be:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Subsidy rate
                  Manufacturer/exporter                     (percent ad
                                                             valorem)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jindal Poly Films of India Limited......................            8.90
SRF Limited.............................................            2.11
Ester Industries Limited................................            6.09
Garware Polyester Ltd...................................            6.09
Polyplex Corporation Ltd................................            6.09
Vacmet..................................................            6.09
Vacmet India Limited....................................            6.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment and Cash Deposit Requirements

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), the Department intends to 
issue appropriate instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) 15 days after publication of the final results of this review. 
The Department will instruct CBP to liquidate shipments of subject 
merchandise produced and/or exported by the companies listed above, 
entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 
2013, through December 31, 2013, at the percent rates, as listed above 
for each of the respective companies, of the entered value.
    The Department intends also to instruct CBP to collect cash 
deposits of estimated countervailing duties, in the amounts shown above 
for each of the respective companies shown above, on shipments of 
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of 
this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to 
continue to collect cash deposits at the most-recent company-specific 
or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These 
cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
further notice.

Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to 
an administrative protective order (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 
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/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.
    These final results are issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 8, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I--Issues and Decision Memorandum

I. Summary
II. Background
    Scope of the Order
III. Subsidies Valuation Information
    A. Allocation Period
    B. Benchmarks Interest Rates
    C. Denominator
IV. Analysis of Programs
    A. Programs Determined To Be Countervailable
    B. Programs Determined To Be Not Used or To Provide No Benefit 
During the POR
V. Analysis of Comments
    Comment 1: Whether the Department Wrongly Countervailed Export 
Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) Benefits That Apply to Non-
Subject Merchandise.
    Comment 2: Whether the Department Used the Wrong Numerator To 
Calculate the POR Benefit For the Status Holder Incentive Scheme 
(SHIS).
    Comment 3: Whether the Value Added Tax (VAT) and Central Sales 
Tax (CST) Refunds Under the Industrial Promotion Subsidy (IPS) of 
the State Government of Maharashtra's (SGOM) Package Scheme of 
Incentives (PSI) Is Countervailable.
    Comment 4: Whether the Department Double Counted One of the 
EPCGS Licences Reported by Jindal and Failed To Include the Benefit 
of Another License in Its Rate Calculations for Jindal

[[Page 7755]]

    Comment 5: Whether the Department Used the Wrong Figure To 
Calculate the Duty Drawback Subsidy for Jindal

[FR Doc. 2016-03082 Filed 2-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P