[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4590-4592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1759]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-814]
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Japan;
Preliminary Results and Termination, in Part, of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results and termination, in part, of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests from one respondent and one U.S.
producer, the Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene
terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from Japan. The review
covers two manufacturers/exporters of this merchandise to the United
States, Toray Industries, Inc. (Toray), and Teijin, Ltd. (Teijin), and
the period June 1, 1992 through May 31, 1993. We are now terminating
this review, in part, with respect to a third company, Diafoil Co.,
Ltd. (Diafoil).
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
the foreign market value (FMV). If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct
U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference
between the United States price (USP) and FMV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 24, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arthur N. DuBois or Thomas F. Futtner,
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-
6312/3814.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 7, 1993, the Department published a notice of ``Opportunity
to Request an Administrative Review'' (58 FR 31941) of the antidumping
duty order on PET film (56 FR 25660, June 5, 1991). On June 30, 1993,
one respondent, Toray, requested an administrative review and one U.S.
producer, Toray Plastics America (TPA), requested an administrative
review for two other Japanese manufacturers/exporters of PET film,
Teijin and Diafoil. We initiated the review, covering June 1, 1992,
through May 31, 1993, on July 21, 1993 (58 FR 39007).
Termination in Part
On February 4, 1994, TPA withdrew its request for review and
requested that the Department terminate this review, in part, with
respect to Diafoil. Section 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5) of the Department's
regulations stipulates that the Secretary may permit a party that
requests a review to withdraw the request not later than 90 days after
the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested
review. This regulation also provides that the Secretary may extend the
time limit for withdrawal of a request if it is reasonable to do so.
Because no other interested party has requested an administrative
review of Diafoil for this period, we are waiving the 90-day
requirement in section 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5) and terminating this review,
in part, with respect to Diafoil. The Department has now conducted the
review of the two remaining companies in accordance with section 751 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by the review are shipments of all gauges of raw,
pretreated, or primed PET film, sheet, and strip, whether extruded or
co-extruded. The films excluded from the scope of this order are
metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of
their surfaces modified by the application of performance-enhancing
resin or inorganic layer more than 0.00001 inches (0.254 micrometers)
thick. Roller transport cleaning film which has at least one of its
surfaces modified by the application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR latex
has also been ruled as not within the scope of the order.
PET film is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(HTS) subheading 3920.62.00.00. The HTS subheading is provided for
convenience and for Customs purposes. The written description remains
dispositive.
The review covers two Japanese manufacturers/exporters of this
merchandise to the United States and the period June 1, 1992, through
May 31, 1993.
United States Price (USP)
We calculated the USP based on purchase price, for both Toray and
Teijin as all U.S. sales were made to unrelated parties prior to
importation into the United States, in accordance with section 772(b)
of the Act.
For both Toray and Teijin, we calculated purchase price based on
f.o.b. Japanese port or delivered U.S. customer prices. We also made
deductions, where appropriate, for price adjustments (rebates) for the
costs of foreign inland freight and insurance, bank charges,
containerization, warehousing, commissions, credit insurance, inventory
carrying charges, other expenses, compensation for credit expense,
foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S.
duty, harbor and U.S. [[Page 4591]] Customs user fees, U.S. brokerage
and handling, and U.S. inland freight and insurance in accordance with
section 772(d)(2) of the Act.
In addition, we adjusted USP for taxes in accordance with our
practice outlined in Siliconmagnanese from Venezuela, Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204, June 17,
1994.
No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Foreign Market Value
In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of PET
film in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating FMV,
we compared the volume of home market sales of PET film to the volume
of third country sales of PET film, in accordance with section
773(a)(1) of the Act. Each respondent had a viable home market with
respect to sales of PET film made during the period of review (POR).
For both Toray and Teijin, we utilized annual weight-averaged FMVs
for purposes of comparison. For Toray, we calculated annual FMV's based
on delivered prices to unrelated customers in the home market. In
accordance with 19 CFR 353.45(a) we did not use related party sales
because the prices to related parties were determined not to be at
arm's length. We made deductions, where appropriate, for rebates, and
post-sale inland freight. We deducted home market packing cost and
added U.S. packing costs.
For Teijin, we calculated annual FMV's based on delivered prices to
unrelated and related customers in the home market.
These related party sales were determined to be at arm's length, in
accordance with section 353.45(a) of our regulations. We made
deductions, where appropriate, for rebates and post-sale inland freight
and insurance. We deducted home market packing cost and added U.S.
packing costs.
For both Teijin and Toray we made a difference-in-merchandise
adjustments, where appropriate, based on differences in the variable
cost of manufacture. For both Toray and Teijin, pursuant to 19 CFR
353.56, we also made circumstance-of-sale adjustments, where
appropriate, for differences in claim compensation expenses, post-sale
warehousing expenses, credit expenses and credit interest revenue.
Finally, we adjusted for Japanese consumption taxes in accordance with
our decision in Siliconmagnanese from Venezuela, Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204, June 17,
1994.
No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following margins exist for the period June 1, 1992, through May 31,
1993:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/producer/exporter percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toray......................................................... 0.33
Teijin........................................................ 7.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
De minimis.
Case briefs and/or written comments from interested parties may be
submitted no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this
notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to
issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed not later
than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Within 10 days of the date of publication of this notice,
interested parties to this proceeding may request a disclosure and/or a
hearing. The hearing, if requested, will take place not later than 44
days after publication of this notice. Persons interested in attending
the hearing should contact the Department for the date and time of the
hearing.
The Department will subsequently publish the final results of this
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues
raised in any such written comments or a hearing.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentages stated
above. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions
directly to the Customs Service upon completion of this review.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of our final results of review for all shipments of
the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after that publication date of the final results of
this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the
Act:
(1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be those
rates established in the final results of this review, except for rates
which are less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis, the cash
deposit will be zero;
(2) The cash deposit rate for subject merchandise exported by
manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review, but covered in
previous reviews or in the original LTFV investigation, will be based
upon the most recently published rate in a final result or
determination for which the manufacturer or exporter received a
company-specific rate;
(3) The cash deposit rate for subject merchandise exported by an
exporter not covered in this review, a prior review, or the original
investigation, but where the manufacturer of the merchandise has been
covered by this or a prior final results or determination, will be
based upon the most recently published company-specific rate for that
manufacturer; and
(4) The cash deposit rate for merchandise exported by all other
manufacturers and exporters, who are not covered by these or any
previous administrative review conducted by the Department, will be the
``all others'' rate established in the less than fair value
investigation.
On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT), in Floral
Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.Supp 766, and Federal-Mogul
Corporation v. United States, 839 F.Supp 864, decided that once an
``all others'' rate is established for a company, it can only be
changed through an administrative review. The Department has determined
that, in order to implement these decisions, it is appropriate to
reinstate the original ``all others'' rate from the LTFV investigation
(or that rate as amended for correction of clerical errors or as a
result of litigation) in the proceeding governed by antidumping duty
orders.
Because this proceeding is governed by an antidumping duty order,
the ``all others'' rate will be 6.32 percent, the ``all others'' rate
established in the LTFV investigation (56 FR 25660, June 5, 1991).
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review, termination in part, and notice are in
accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.22.
[[Page 4592]] Dated: January 12, 1995.
Paul L. Joffe,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-1759 Filed 1-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P