[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17791-17793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08692]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-560-832, A-580-896, and A-583-862]


Antidumping Duty Investigations on Polyethylene Terephthalate 
Resin From Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan; Preliminary 
Determinations of Critical Circumstances

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines 
that critical circumstances exist for imports of polyethylene 
terephthalate (PET) resin from certain producers and exporters from 
Indonesia, the Republic of Korea (Korea), and Taiwan.

DATES: Applicable April 24, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene H. Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3586.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 26, 2017, Commerce received antidumping duty (AD) 
petitions concerning imports of PET resin from Brazil, Indonesia, 
Korea, Pakistan, and Taiwan, on behalf of DAK Americas LLC; Indorama 
Ventures USA, Inc. (Indorama Ventures); M&G Polymers USA, LLC; and Nan 
Ya Plastics Corporation, America (collectively, the petitioners).\1\ On 
March 27, 2018, the petitioners timely filed allegations that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to imports of PET resin from producers 
and exporters from Indonesia, Korea, and Taiwan.\2\ In accordance with 
19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), when a critical circumstances allegation is 
submitted more than 20 days before the scheduled date of the 
preliminary determination, Commerce must issue a preliminary finding of 
whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical 
circumstances exist by no later than the date of the preliminary 
determination. In the subject AD investigations, the petitioners 
requested that Commerce issue preliminary critical circumstances 
determinations on an expedited basis.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Petition for the Imposition of 
Antidumping Duties--Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from 
Brazil, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Pakistan, and Taiwan,'' 
dated September 26, 2017 (the Petitions). However, Indorama Ventures 
is not a petitioner with respect to the Indonesia petition.
    \2\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) 
Resin from Indonesia, Korea, and Taiwan--Critical Circumstances 
Allegation,'' dated March 27, 2018 (Critical Circumstances 
Allegations).
    \3\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 
provides that Commerce, upon receipt of a timely allegation of critical 
circumstances, will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances 
exist in AD investigations if there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that: (A)(i) There is a history of dumping and material injury 
by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the 
subject merchandise, or (A)(ii) the person by whom, or for whose 
account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that 
the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair 
value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such 
sales, and (B) there have been massive imports of the subject 
merchandise over a relatively short period.
    Sections 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) and (i) provide that imports must 
increase by at least 15 percent during the ``relatively short period'' 
to be considered ``massive'' and defines a ``relatively short period'' 
as normally being the period beginning on the date the proceeding 
begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) and ending at least three 
months later. Commerce's regulations also provide, however, that if 
Commerce finds that importers, or exporters or producers, had reason to 
believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a 
proceeding was likely, Commerce may consider a period of not less than 
three months from that earlier time.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 19 CFR 351.206(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Critical Circumstances Analysis

History of Dumping and Material Injury/Knowledge of Sales Below Fair 
Value and Material Injury

    To determine whether there is a history of dumping pursuant to 
section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, Commerce generally considers 
current or previous AD orders on subject merchandise from the country 
in question in the United States and current orders imposed by other 
countries regarding imports of the same merchandise. The Critical 
Circumstances Allegations show that other countries have current 
measures in place covering imports of the same merchandise from the 
countries subject to these allegations.\5\ For example, imports of PET 
resin from Indonesia have been subject to an AD measure in Malaysia 
since March 2015; imports of PET resin from Korea have been subject to 
an AD measure in Argentina since September 2017; and imports of PET 
resin from Taiwan have been subject to an AD measure in Argentina since 
September 2016.\6\ Therefore, based on the AD measures in third-country

[[Page 17792]]

markets referenced above, we preliminarily determine that there is a 
history of dumping of PET resin exported from Indonesia, Korea, and 
Taiwan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Critical Circumstances Allegations at Attachment 1 
referencing, ``Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices, Semi-Annual 
Report Under Article 16.4 of the Agreement--Argentina,'' WTO no. G/
ADP/N/300/ARG (17-4516), dated August 24, 2017; ``Committee on Anti-
Dumping Practices, Semi-Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the 
Agreement--Brazil,'' WTO no. G/ADP/N/294/BRA (17-1149), dated 
February 24, 2017; ``Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices, Semi-
Annual Report under Article 16.4 of the Agreement--Indonesia,'' WTO 
no. G/ADP/N/294/IDN (17-1537), dated March 21, 2017; ``Committee on 
Anti-Dumping Practices, Semi-Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the 
Agreement--Malaysia,'' WTO no. G/ADP/N/294/MYS (17-1375), dated 
March 8, 2017; and ``Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices, Semi-
Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the Agreement--South Africa,'' 
WTO no. G/ADP/N/294/ZAF (17-1440), dated March 13, 2017.
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether importers knew or should have known that 
exporters were selling the subject merchandise at less than fair value 
pursuant section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, we typically consider the 
magnitude of dumping margins, including margins alleged in 
petitions.\7\ Commerce has found margins of 15 percent or more (for 
constructed export price) to 25 percent or more (for export price) to 
be sufficient for this purpose.\8\ Dumping margins alleged in the three 
AD petitions regarding the Critical Circumstances Allegations 
significantly exceed the 15 to 25 percent threshold: 53.50 percent for 
Indonesia,\9\ 101.41 percent for Korea,\10\ and 45 percent for 
Taiwan.\11\ Because the margins alleged in the Petitions exceed the 
threshold sufficient to impute that importers had knowledge that 
exporters of PET resin from Indonesia, Korea, and Taiwan were selling 
subject merchandise at less than fair value, we preliminarily determine 
that importers knew or should have known that producers/exporters of 
PET resin in all three countries subject to the Critical Circumstances 
Allegations were selling subject merchandise to the United States at 
less than fair value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Investigations of Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, 
Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and 
Taiwan: Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances, 80 FR 
68504 (November 5, 2015) (unchanged in the final determinations); 
see also Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Australia, the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of 
Korea, the Netherlands, and the Russian Federation, 67 FR 19157, 
19158 (April 18, 2002) (unchanged in the final determination).
    \8\ Id.; see also Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the 
People's Republic of China, 62 FR 31972, 31978 (June 11, 1997) 
(unchanged in the final determination) and Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672 (July 16, 2004) 
(unchanged in the final determination).
    \9\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Polyethylene Terephthalate 
(``PET'') Resin from Brazil, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, 
Pakistan, and Taiwan--Petitioners' Amendment to Volume III Relating 
to Indonesia Antidumping Duties,'' dated October 3, 2017 at 9.
    \10\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Polyethylene Terephthalate 
(``PET'') Resin from Brazil, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, 
Pakistan, and Taiwan--Petitioners' Amendment to Volume IV Relating 
to the Republic of Korea Antidumping Duties,'' dated October 3, 2017 
at 10.
    \11\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Polyethylene Terephthalate 
(``PET'') Resin from Brazil, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, 
Pakistan, and Taiwan--Petitioners' Amendment to Volume VI Relating 
to Taiwan Antidumping Duties,'' dated October 3, 2017 at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether importers knew or should have known that there 
was likely to be material injury caused by reason of such imports 
pursuant section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, Commerce normally will 
look to the preliminary injury determination of the International Trade 
Commission (ITC).\12\ If the ITC finds a reasonable indication of 
material injury to the relevant U.S. industry, material injury (as 
opposed to the threat of injury), Commerce will determine that a 
reasonable basis exists to impute importer knowledge that material 
injury is likely by reason of such imports. In the subject AD 
investigations, the ITC found that there is a ``reasonable indication'' 
of material injury to the domestic industry because of the imported 
subject merchandise.\13\ Therefore, the ITC's preliminary injury 
determination in these investigations is sufficient to impute importer 
knowledge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances in the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR 
24572, 24573 (May 5, 2010), unchanged in Certain Potassium Phosphate 
Salts from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Termination of Critical 
Circumstances Inquiry, 75 FR 30377 (June 1, 2010).
    \13\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin from Brazil, 
Indonesia, Korea, Pakistan, and Taiwan; Determinations, 82 FR 53523 
(November 16, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Massive Imports

    Because the statutory criteria of section 733(e)(1)(A) of the Act 
have been satisfied, we next examined whether imports of subject 
merchandise from Indonesia, Korea, and Taiwan were ``massive'' over a 
relatively short period, pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.206(h). In making this determination, Commerce normally 
compares the import volumes of the subject merchandise for at least 
three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition (i.e., 
the ``base period'') to a comparable period of at least three months 
following the filing of the petition (i.e., the ``comparison period''). 
Imports will normally be considered massive when imports during the 
comparison period have increased by 15 percent or more compared to 
imports during the base period. It is Commerce's practice to base its 
critical circumstances analysis on all available data, using base and 
comparison periods of no less than three months.\14\ For these 
preliminary determinations of critical circumstances, Commerce is 
defining the base and comparison periods within the bounds of its 
normal practice by extending the comparison period through January 2018 
as shipment data is available on the record to do so. This is 
consistent with our past practice.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and 
Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances; 
Certain Frozen Canned Warmwater Shrimp from India, 69 FR 47111, 
47118-47119 (August 4, 2004), unchanged in Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned 
Warmwater Shrimp from India, 69 FR 76916 (December 23, 2004); see 
also Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain New Pneumatic Off-
the-Road Tires from India: Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances 
Determination, in Part, 82 FR 2946 (January 10, 2017) (OTR Tires 
from India) and accompanying ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for 
the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of 
Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India,'' at 39-41.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, in order to preliminarily determine whether there has been a 
massive surge in imports for each cooperating mandatory respondent, 
using shipment data submitted by the cooperating mandatory respondents, 
and shipment data of subject merchandise compiled by the ITC, Commerce 
compared the total volume of shipments from October 2017 through 
January 2018 (i.e., all months for which shipment data was available) 
with the preceding four-month period of June 2017 through September 
2017.\16\ For ``all others,'' Commerce subtracted shipments reported by 
the cooperating mandatory respondents from the ITC data. For non-
cooperating mandatory respondents (i.e., those mandatory respondents 
that did not respond to our critical circumstances questionnaire or who 
otherwise indicated their unwillingness to participate in the 
investigations), we preliminarily determine, on the basis of adverse 
facts available,\17\ that there has been a massive surge in imports. 
Accordingly, based on our analysis of information on the record, we 
preliminarily determine the following producers/exporters of subject 
merchandise had an increase of 15 percent or more in imports of subject 
merchandise during the comparison period when compared to the base 
period, satisfying the massive surge criteria, pursuant to section 
733(e)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(h).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ These base and comparison periods satisfy the regulatory 
provisions that the base period be at least three months long and 
the base period have a comparable duration. Commerce gathered ITC 
shipment data under the harmonized tariff schedule numbers, 
3907.61.0000 and 3907.69.0000.
    \17\ See section 776 of the Act.
    \18\ See respective preliminary critical circumstances 
calculation memoranda for each proceeding, dated concurrently with 
this Federal Register notice.

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

[[Page 17793]]

     Indonesia (A-560-832): Indorama Polymers Public Co., Ltd.; 
All Other Producers/Exporters
     Korea (A-580-896): Lotte Chemical Corp. (REGD); TK 
Chemical Corp.; All Other Producers/Exporters
     Taiwan (A-583-862): Far Eastern New Century Corporation; 
Far Eastern Textile Ltd.; Worldwide Polychem (HK), Ltd.; All Other 
Producers/Exporters
    In addition, based on record information, we also find that certain 
producers/exporters did not experience an increase of 15 percent or 
more in imports of subject merchandise during the comparison period 
when compared to the base period. As such, the following producers/
exporters of subject merchandise did not have massive imports, as 
defined by section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(h).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Indonesia (A-560-832): PT. Indo-Rama Synthetics Tbk.
     Korea (A-580-896): SK Chemicals Co., Ltd.
     Taiwan (A-583-862): Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation
    Finally, we note that in the AD investigation regarding imports of 
subject merchandise from Korea, respondent company SKC Co., Ltd. (SKC) 
submitted a certification, in lieu of a questionnaire response, that it 
did not make shipments of subject merchandise to the United States 
during the period of investigation, and there is no information on the 
record to contradict this claim. As a result, we are not making a 
critical circumstances determination with respect to SKC.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ SKC is a distinct entity from mandatory respondent SK 
Chemicals Co., Ltd. (SK Chemicals), which had shipments during the 
period of investigation and which submitted a complete questionnaire 
response. SK Chemicals submitted shipment data for purposes of our 
critical circumstances determination, which has been analyzed for 
these preliminary critical circumstances determinations. We have 
reached a negative finding of critical circumstances for SK 
Chemicals, as indicated above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the criteria and findings discussed above, we 
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist with respect 
to imports of PET resin shipped by certain producers/exporters. Our 
findings are summarized as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Negative
                                                                                                  preliminary
             Country                     Case No.          Affirmative preliminary critical        critical
                                                              circumstances determination        circumstances
                                                                                                 determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indonesia.......................  A-560-832               Indorama Polymers Public Co.,       PT. Indo-Rama
                                                           Ltd.; All Other Producers/          Synthetics Tbk.
                                                           Exporters.
Korea...........................  A-580-896               Lotte Chemical Corp. (REGD); TK     SK Chemicals Co.,
                                                           Chemical Corp.;.                    Ltd.
                                                          All Other Producers/Exporters.....
Taiwan..........................  A-583-862               Far Eastern New Century             Shinkong Synthetic
                                                           Corporation; Far Eastern Textile    Fibers
                                                           Ltd.; Worldwide Polychem (HK),      Corporation.
                                                           Ltd.; All Other Producers/
                                                           Exporters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Critical Circumstances Determinations

    We will issue our final determinations concerning critical 
circumstances when we issue our final less than fair value 
determinations. All interested parties will have the opportunity to 
address these preliminary determinations in case briefs to be submitted 
after completion of the preliminary less than fair value 
determinations.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with sections 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify 
the ITC of its preliminary determinations.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, because we have 
preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to 
imports exported by certain producers and exporters, if we make an 
affirmative preliminary determination that sales at less than fair 
value have been made by these same producers/exporters at above de 
minimis rates,\21\ we will instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from these 
producers/exporters that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date that is 90 days prior to the effective 
date of ``provisional measures'' (e.g., the date of publication in the 
Federal Register of the notice of an affirmative preliminary 
determination of sales at less than fair value at above de minimis 
rates). At such time, we will also instruct CBP to require a cash 
deposit equal to the estimated preliminary dumping margins reflected in 
the preliminary determination published in the Federal Register. The 
suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The preliminary determinations concerning the sales at less 
than fair value investigations are currently scheduled for April 27, 
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 
777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c).

    Dated: April 20, 2018.
James Maeder,
Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2018-08692 Filed 4-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P