[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