[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 49 (Thursday, March 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14463-14465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05064]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-533-825]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2017

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), producers 
and/or exporters of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip 
(PET film) from India, received net countervailable subsidies during 
the period of review (POR) January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.

DATES: Applicable March 12, 2020.

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 review on 
September 12, 2019.\1\ For a history of events that occurred since the 
Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.\2\ On 
January 3, 2020, we extended the final results of review by sixty days 
until March 10, 2020.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from 
India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review; 2017, 84 FR 48105 (September 12, 2019) 
(Preliminary Results).
    \2\ See Memorandum, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 
Final Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review of 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India; 
2017,'' dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice 
(Issues and Decision Memorandum).
    \3\ See Memorandum, ``Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and 
Strip from India: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,'' dated January 3, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on an analysis of the comments received and record 
information, we have revised our calculations for Jindal. The final 
subsidy rates are listed in the ``Final Results of Administrative 
Review'' section below.

[[Page 14464]]

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 Commerce building. 
In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum 
can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on the comments received from interested parties, we made 
changes to the net subsidy rate calculated for one of the two mandatory 
respondents. Specifically, upon analyzing parties' comments, we noted a 
ministerial error in the rate calculations for one program. 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

    The statute and Commerce's regulations do not directly address the 
establishment of rates to be applied to companies not selected for 
individual examination where Commerce limits its examination in an 
administrative review pursuant to section 777A(e)(2) of the Act. 
However, Commerce normally determines the rates for non-selected 
companies in reviews in a manner that is consistent with section 
705(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the 
all-others rate in an investigation.
    Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act instructs Commerce, as a general 
rule, to calculate an all-others rate equal to the weighted average of 
the countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and 
producers individually investigated, excluding any zero, de minimis, or 
rates based entirely on facts available. In this review, Commerce 
calculated weighted average countervailable subsidy rates for Jindal 
and SRF that are not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts 
otherwise available. Therefore, Commerce calculated the all-others rate 
using a weighted average of the countervailable subsidy rates 
calculated for Jindal and SRF using each company's publicly-ranged 
values for the merchandise under consideration.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ With two respondents under examination, Commerce normally 
calculates (A) a weighted-average of the estimated subsidy rates 
calculated for the examined respondents; (B) a simple average of the 
estimated subsidy rates calculated for the examined respondents; and 
(C) a weighted-average of the estimated subsidy rates calculated for 
the examined respondents using each company's publicly-ranged U.S. 
sale quantities for the merchandise under consideration. Commerce 
then compares (B) and (C) to (A) and selects the rate closest to (A) 
as the most appropriate rate for all other producers and exporters. 
See, e.g., 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 
available, Commerce based the all-others rate on the publicly-ranged 
sales data of the mandatory respondents. For a complete analysis of 
the data, see the All-Others Rate Calculation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, 2017 through December 31, 2017 
to be:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Subsidy
                                                                 rate
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent
                                                                  ad
                                                               valorem)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jindal Poly Films Limited of India..........................       10.51
SRF Limited.................................................        7.22
Ester Industries Limited....................................        9.30
Garware Polyester Ltd.......................................        9.30
Polyplex Corporation Ltd....................................        9.30
Vacmet India Limited........................................        9.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for these 
final results of review within five days of the date of publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.224(b).

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, 2017 through 
December 31, 2017, 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

[[Page 14465]]

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.

Notification to Interested Parties

    These final results are issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: March 6, 2020.
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 and Post-Preliminary 
Results
V. Scope of the Order
VI. Period of Revie
VII. Subsidies Valuation Information
VIII. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences
IX. Analysis of Programs
X. Final Results of Review
XI. Analysis of Comments
    Comment 1: Whether Commerce properly determined the appropriate 
denominator for Jindal Poly Films Limited (Jindal) for all export 
subsidies.
    Comment 2: Whether Commerce properly relied on facts available 
and an adverse inference to find the Section 32 Capital Investment 
Deductions of the Income Tax Act, 1961--Subsection 32AC(1A) program 
is a countervailable subsidy.
    Comment 3: Whether Commerce properly found the State Government 
of Maharashtra (SGOM) Package Scheme of Incentives (PSI) 2007--
Industrial Promotion Subsidy (IPS) to be a countervailable subsidy.
    Comment 4: Whether Commerce should revise all allocations for 
all non-recurring subsidies based on Jindal's revised company-
specific average useful life (AUL).
    Comment 5: Whether Commerce should not countervail export 
promotion capital
    goods scheme (EPCGS) Licenses for Jindal's Global Non-Wovens 
(GNL) division for non-subject merchandise.
    Comment 6: Whether Commerce should deduct Jindal's application 
fees it paid for its EPCGS licenses from the calculated benefit 
amounts.
    Comment 7: Whether Commerce made a calculation error related to 
the services export from India/services from India (SEIS/SFIS) 
schemes.
    Comment 8: Whether Commerce failed to explain the source for the 
interest rate used in the allocation of the status holder incentive 
scheme (SHIS).
    XII. Recommendation

[FR Doc. 2020-05064 Filed 3-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P