[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13327-13330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05710]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-861]
Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From India: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that
imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate resin (PET resin) from
India are being sold in the United States at less than fair value
(LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act). The final weighted-average dumping margins of sales
at LTFV are listed below in the section entitled ``Final Determination
Margins.''
DATES: Effective Date: March 14, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD
Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2924 or (202) 482-0649.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 13328]]
Background
On October 15, 2015, the Department published in the Federal
Register the preliminary determination in the LTFV investigation of PET
resin from India.\1\ The events occurring since the Preliminary
Determination was issued are addressed in detail in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum.\2\ 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. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is available to
all parties 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 at http://enforcement.trade.gov. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues
and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From India:
Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination, 80 FR 62029
(October 15, 2015) (Preliminary Determination).
\2\ 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 Determination of the
Less-Than-Fair Value Investigation of Certain Polyethylene
Terephthalate Resin (PET) Resin from India (Issues and Decision
Memorandum),'' dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 determination of this investigation is now March
4, 2016.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Memorandum to the Record from Ron Lorentzen, Acting A/S
for Enforcement & Compliance, regarding ``Tolling of Administrative
Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During Snowstorm
Jonas,'' dated January 27, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2014, through
December 31, 2014.
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this investigation is certain PET resin from
India. For a full description of the scope of the investigation, see
Appendix I to this notice.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in
this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
accompanying this notice, and which is hereby adopted by this
notice.\4\ A list of the issues raised and to which the Department
responded is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes to the Margin Calculations Since the Preliminary Determination
Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from
parties, and minor corrections presented at verification, we made
certain changes to Ester's and Reliance's margin calculations in the
Preliminary Determination. For a discussion of these changes, see the
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available and AFA
In the preliminary determination, we stated that because the
mandatory respondents Dhunseri Petrochem, Limited (Dhunseri) and JBF
Industries, Limited (JBF) failed to respond to the Department's
questionnaire, we preliminarily determined to apply facts otherwise
available with an adverse inference to these respondents pursuant to
sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.\5\ Pursuant to section 776 of the
Act, the Department continues to find it appropriate to base Dhunseri
and JBF's rate on AFA. In applying AFA, we are assigning Dhunseri and
JBF the highest margin identified in the petition, 19.41 percent. See
the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Memorandum from Christian Marsh to Paul Piquado,
``Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate
Resin from India,'' dated October 6, 2015, at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Determination Margins
The Department determines that the following weighted-average
dumping margins exist for the period January 1, 2014, through December
31, 2014:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter or producer dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dhunseri Petrochem, Ltd.................................... 19.41
Ester Industries, Ltd...................................... 14.23
JBF Industries, Ltd........................................ 19.41
Reliance Industries, Ltd................................... 8.03
All-Others................................................. 11.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All-Others Rate
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated ``all-
others'' rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the
estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters
and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de
minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776
of the Act. In this investigation, we calculated weighted-average
dumping margins for mandatory respondents Ester and Reliance that are
above de minimis and which are not based on section 776 of the Act.
However, because there are only two relevant weighted-average dumping
margins for this final determination, using a weighted-average of these
two rates risks disclosure of business proprietary data. Therefore, the
Department assigned a margin to the all-others rate companies based on
the simple average of the two mandatory respondents' rates,\6\ less an
adjustment for the export subsidies identified in the companion
countervailing duty investigation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ With two respondents, we would normally calculate (A) a
weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory
respondents; (B) a simple average of the dumping margins calculated
for the mandatory respondents; and (C) a weighted-average of the
dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents using each
company's publicly-ranged values for the merchandise under
consideration. We would compare (B) and (C) to (A) and select the
rate closest to (A) as the most appropriate rate for all other
companies. See, Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Results of Changed-
Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR
53661, 53663 (September 1, 2010). As complete publicly ranged sales
data was unavailable, we based the all-others rate on a simple
average of the two calculated margins. See, e.g., Large Power
Transformers From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 77 FR 9204 (February 16, 2012), unchanged in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 77 FR 40857, 40858
(July 11, 2012).
\7\ See section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act. Unlike in
administrative reviews, the Department calculates the adjustment for
export subsidies in investigations not in the margin calculation
program, but in the cash deposit instructions issued to CBP. See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and
Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined
Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13329]]
Disclosure
We will disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations
performed for this final determination within five days of the date of
public announcement of our final determination, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b).
Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that, based
on respondents' reported shipment volumes, there was reason to believe
or suspect that critical circumstances existed for imports of subject
merchandise from India from Ester and Reliance. Furthermore, we drew an
adverse inference with respect to Dhunseri and JBF, both of which are
mandatory respondents that failed to respond to our requests for
information, and thereby determined that critical circumstances existed
with respect to them also. Finally, based on data from the ITC Dataweb,
we found that there were critical circumstances with respect to those
Indian shippers which were not selected for individual examination.\8\
We received one comment on the Department's preliminary affirmative
determination of critical circumstances, and have addressed the comment
in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. It did not cause us
to change our preliminary determination. Therefore, pursuant to section
735(a)(3) of the Act, we continue to determine that critical
circumstances exist with respect to imports of PET resin from India
from all parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Preliminary Determination, 80 FR at 62030, and
accompanying Preliminary Issues and Decision Memorandum at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to
suspend liquidation of all entries of certain PET resin from India
which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or
after July 17, 2015, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication
of the preliminary determination.
We also will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the
weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price,
adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies, as follows: (1) The
cash deposit rate for Dhunseri, Ester, JBF, and Reliance will be equal
to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this
final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified in
this investigation but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be
equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for
the producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate
for all other producers or exporters will be 11.13 percent.
Consistent with our practice,\9\ where the product under
investigation is also subject to a concurrent CVD investigation, we
instruct CBP to require a cash deposit less the amount of the
countervailing duty determined to constitute an export subsidy.\10\
Therefore, in the event that a CVD order is issued and suspension of
liquidation is resumed in the companion CVD investigation on PET resin
from India, the Department will instruct CBP to require cash deposits
adjusted for export subsidies, as appropriate, found in the final
determination of the companion CVD investigation. Specifically, for
cash deposit purposes, we will subtract from the applicable cash
deposit rate that portion of the CVD rate attributable to the export
subsidies found in the final affirmative countervailing duty
determination for each respondent (i.e., 5.10 percent for Dhunseri,
Ester, Reliance, and ``all-others,'' and 37.08 for JBF.) \11\ After
this adjustment, the resulting cash deposit rates will be 14.31 percent
for Dhunseri, 9.13 percent for Ester, 2.93 percent for Reliance, 00.00
percent for JBF, and 6.03 for ``all-others.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Department terminated the suspension of liquidation
associated with the CVD investigation effective December 12, 2015.
See CBP message no. 5348309 dated December 14, 2015. Therefore,
until and unless suspension of liquidation is resumed, we will not
adjust the antidumping cash deposit rate for collection of duties
associated with export subsidies.
\10\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR
67306, 67307 (November 17, 2004); and Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Critical Circumstances
Determination: Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers From
the Republic of Korea, 77 FR 17413 (March 26, 2012).
\11\ See the Memorandum to the File, through Robert James,
Program Manager, Office VI, AD/CVD Operations, from Fred Baker,
Analyst, Office VI, AD/CVD Operations, entitled, ``Export Subsidies
Calculated in the Countervailing Duty Final Determination of Certain
Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India,'' dated March 4, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect
until further notice.
International Trade Commission Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the
U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final determination.
As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section
735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine within 45 days whether the
domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or
threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the
likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the
ITC determines that such injury exists, the Department will issue an
antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further
instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of
liquidation.
Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information
This notice will serve as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion to
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: March 4, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance.
Appendix I--Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation 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 this investigation
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.
Appendix II--List of Topics in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Period of Investigation
IV. Scope of the Investigation
[[Page 13330]]
V. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination
VI. Use of Adverse Facts Available
VII. Discussion of Interested Party Comments
Comment 1: Whether Critical Circumstances Exist
Comment 2: Whether Ester Should Be a Mandatory Respondent in
This Investigation
Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Recalculate Imputed
Credit
Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Recalculate Home Market
Inland Freight
Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Make a Duty Drawback
Adjustment
Comment 6: Whether to Adjust Ester's G&A Ratio
Comment 7: Whether to Adjust Ester's Financial Expense Ratio
Comment 8: Whether to Include Import Taxes in the Total Cost of
Manufacture
Comment 9: Whether to Rely on Ester's Revised Packing Costs
Comment 10: Whether to Revise Reliance's COP Using Reliance's
Verified Actual Chain Costs
Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Use its Differential
Pricing Analysis in the Final Determination
Comment 12: Whether to Use Invoice Date as the Date of Sale in
Both Markets
Comment 13: Whether to Resort to Adverse Facts Available for
Reliance
A. Whether Reliance Failed to Submit All Home Market Sales
Subject to the Investigation
B. Whether Reliance Provided a Complete Home Market Sales
Listing for Contract Customers
C. Whether Reliance Reported the Wrong Date as the Sale Date for
U.S. Sales
D. Whether Reliance Wrongly Submitted a Claim for a Duty
Drawback Adjustment
E. Whether Reliance Wrongly Submitted a Claim for an Adjustment
for the Focus Product Scheme
F. Whether the Department Failed to Verify Export Warranty
Expenses
G. Whether Reliance Incorrectly Included Third-Country Sales in
its Home Market Sales Listing
H. Whether Reliance Incorrectly Included Free Samples in its
Home Market Sales Listing
I. Whether Reliance Knowingly Withheld its U.S. and Home Market
Short-Term Interest Rates
J. Whether Reliance Failed to Accurately Provide Its U.S. and
Home Market Selling Functions
K. Whether Reliance Incorrectly Offset General and
Administrative Expenses
L. Use of Total Adverse Facts Available
Comment 14: Proper AFA Rate
VIII. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2016-05710 Filed 3-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P