[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 56 (Friday, March 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10789-10790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05521]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-533-825]
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India:
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2016
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, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
DATES: Applicable March 22, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi Blum at 202-482-0197, AD/CVD
Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this review on August
10, 2018.\1\ For a history of events that occurred since the
Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.\2\ On
November 27, 2018, we postponed the final results of review by sixty
days until February 6, 2019. Commerce exercised its discretion to toll
deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from
January 20 to January 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 deadline for the final results of
this administrative review is now March 18, 2019.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from
India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review; 2016, 83 FR 39677 (August 10, 2018)
(Preliminary Results).
\2\ See Memorandum re: 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).
\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on an analysis of the comments received and record
information, we have revised our calculations for SRF. The final
subsidy rates are listed in the ``Final Results of Administrative
Review'' section below.
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
All issues raised by the interested parties in their case and
rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
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.
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 changes to
our rate calculations for Jindal and SRF. We determined
countervailability for certain income tax programs and calculated rates
for Jindal and SRF: ``Income Tax Deductions under Section 35 for
Research and Development (R&D) Expenses (Section 35 R&D Tax
Deductions)'' and ``Section 32 for Investments into new Plants and
Machinery (Section 32 Capital Investment Deductions) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961.'' In addition, we made minor changes for two of SRF's
programs: ``Exemption from Payment of Central Sales Tax (CST) on
Purchases of Capital Goods and Raw Materials, Components, Consumables,
Intermediates, Spare Parts and Packing Material'' and ``State and Union
Territory Sales Tax Incentive Programs.'' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Companies Not Selected for Individual Review
For the companies not selected for individual review, because the
rates calculated for Jindal and SRF were above de minimis and not based
entirely on facts available, we applied, consistent with section
705(c)(5)(A) of
[[Page 10790]]
the Act, a subsidy rate based on a simple average of the subsidy rates
calculated for Jindal and SRF because publicly ranged sales value data
was not submitted by both respondents.
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, 2016, through December 31, 2016
to be:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidy rate
Manufacturer/exporter (percent ad
valorem)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jindal Poly Films of India Limited...................... 11.26
SRF Limited............................................. 7.54
Chiripal Poly Films Limited............................. 9.40
Ester Industries Limited................................ 9.40
Garware Polyester Ltd................................... 9.40
Polyplex Corporation Ltd................................ 9.40
Vacmet India Limited.................................... 9.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 2016, through
December 31, 2016, 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: March 19, 2019.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix
Issues and Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. List of Issues
III. Background
IV. Changes Since the Preliminary Results
V. Scope of the Order
VI. Period of Review
VII. Subsidies Valuation Information
A. Allocation Period
B. Attribution of Subsidies
C. Benchmarks Interest Rates
D. Denominator
VIII. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences
IX. Analysis of Programs
A. Programs Determined To Be Countervailable
B. Programs Determined To Be Not Used or To Provide No Benefit
during the POR
C. Programs Determined To Be Terminated
X. Final Results of Review
XI. Analysis of Comments
Comment 1: Whether Commerce may countervail certain benefits
respondents received pursuant to the Merchandise Exports from India
Scheme (MEIS).
Comment 2: Whether deductions under sections 32AC, 35(1)(iv),
and 35 (2AB) of the Indian Income Tax Act are countervailable
subsidies.
Comment 3: Whether Commerce clearly identified which components
of duties were included in the benefit calculations of the Export
Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS).
Comment 4: Whether the GOI has a verification system in place
for the Duty Drawback Scheme (DDB) that is effective and reasonable,
and whether Commerce is obligated to calculate the ``excess
remission,'' pursuant to the SCM Agreement.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures,
April 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade
Organization (SCM Agreement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 5: Whether Commerce incorrectly determined the Special
Economic Zone (SEZ) program to be contingent on export performance.
Comment 6: Whether the Advance Authorization Scheme (AAS) is a
countervailable subsidy, and whether Commerce is obligated to
calcite the ``excess remission,'' pursuant to the SCM Agreement.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 7: Whether Commerce used the most recent turnover data
reported by SRF in its rate calculations for respondent.
Comment 8: Whether Chiripal was omitted from the list of
respondents not selected for individual review.
XII. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2019-05521 Filed 3-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P