[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 27 (Thursday, February 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5612-5613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02517]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-533-825]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Jindal 
Poly Films Limited of India (Jindal) and SRF Limited (SRF), exporters 
of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from 
India, received countervailable subsidies during the period of review 
(POR) January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.

DATES: Effective February 8, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi Blum, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
VII, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Commerce published the preliminary results of this administrative 
review of PET film from India on August 3, 2016.\1\ We invited 
interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results 2015. On 
November 27, 2017, Commerce postponed the final results of review until 
January 30, 2018. On September 5, 2017, Commerce received a timely 
filed case brief from Jindal, and on September 18, 2017, Commerce 
received timely filed case briefs from the Government of India (GOI) 
and from SRF. On September 25, 2017, Commerce received timely rebuttal 
comments from the petitioners, DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi 
Polyester Film, Inc., and SKC, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners). 
Based on an analysis of the comments received, Commerce has made no 
changes to the subsidy rate determined for respondents. 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; 2015, 82 FR 36124 (August 3, 2016) 
(Preliminary Results 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by 
the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. 
If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with 
Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. 
The revised deadline for the final results of this review is now 
February 2, 2018.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Memorandum for The Record from Christian Marsh, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, performing the 
non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for 
Enforcement and Compliance, ``Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of 
the Federal Government'' (Tolling Memorandum), dated January 23, 
2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been 
extended by 3 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 5613]]

(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 the GOI, SRF, and Jindal in their case briefs 
and the petitioners' issues raised in their rebuttal brief are 
addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.\3\ The issues are 
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\ See Memorandum from James Maeder, Senior Director, 
performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Gary Taverman, Deputy 
Assistant secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the 
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance: ``Issues and 
Decision Memorandum for the Final Results in the Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and 
Strip from India,'' dated concurrently with this determination and 
hereby adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on the comments received from the GOI, Jindal, and SRF, and 
the rebuttal comments received from the petitioners, we made no changes 
to our rate calculations. For a discussion of these issues, see the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Methodology

    Commerce 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.\4\ For a description of the methodology underlying all of 
Commerce's conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, 2015, through December 31, 2015 
to be:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Subsidy rate
                  Manufacturer/exporter                     (percent ad
                                                             valorem)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jindal Poly Films of India Limited......................            5.26
SRF Limited.............................................            5.79
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment and Cash Deposit Requirements

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce intends to issue 
appropriate instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 
days after publication of the final results of this review. Commerce 
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, 2015, through 
December 31, 2015, at the percent rates, as listed above for each of 
the respective companies, of the entered value.
    Commerce 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 2, 2018.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the 
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I

Issues and Decision Memorandum

I. Summary
II. Scope of the Order
III. Period of Review
IV. Subsidies Valuation Information
    A. Allocation Period
    B. Attribution of Subsidies
    C. Benchmarks Interest Rates
    D. Denominator
V. Analysis of Programs
    A. Programs Determined To Be Countervailable
    B. Programs Determined To Be Not Used
    C. Programs Determined To Be Terminated
VI. Final Results of Review
VII. Analysis of Comments

Comment 1: Whether Commerce may disregard loans from certain banks 
with government ownership in its benchmark calculations.
Comment 2: Whether the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) 
is a countervailable export subsidy, pursuant to the SCM Agreement.
Comment 3: Whether the exemption from duties and taxes in a Special 
Economic Zone (SEZ) constitutes a financial contribution.
Comment 4: Whether the benefits SRF received under the SEZ program 
are tied to the export sales of polyester film from the Packaging 
Film Business (PFB) located in the SEZ.
Comment 5: Whether the GOI has a verification system in place for 
the Advance Authorization Scheme (AAS) that is effective and 
reasonable.
Comment 6: Whether Commerce needs to adjust the dates in the 
preliminary draft cash deposit instructions for the final results.

[FR Doc. 2018-02517 Filed 2-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P