[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)] [Notices] [Pages 25194-25196] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 96-12512] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 25195]] DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [A-475-703] Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: On October 17, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of its 1993-94 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from Italy. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Ausimont S.p.A. (Ausimont), for the period August 1, 1993, through July 31, 1994. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. Although we received no comments, we have changed our treatment of home market value-added taxes as explained below. The final margin for Ausimont is listed below in the section ``Final Results of Review.'' EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 1996. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Riggle or Michael Rill, Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482- 4733. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 17, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of its 1993-94 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on granular PTFE resin from Italy (60 FR 53735). The Department has now conducted this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). Applicable Statute and Regulations Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they existed on December 31, 1994. Scope of the Review Imports covered by this review are shipments of granular PTFE resins, filled or unfilled, and shipments of wet raw polymer. The order explicitly excludes PTFE dispersions in water and PTFE fine powders. During the period covered by this review, such merchandise was classified under item number 3904.61.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). We are providing this HTS number for convenience and Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope remains dispositive. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of granular PTFE resin, Ausimont. The review period is August 1, 1993 through July 31, 1994. Home Market Value-Added Tax Although no party raised this as an issue, in light of the Federal Circuit's decision in Federal Mogul v. United States, CAFC No. 94-1097, we have changed our treatment of home market value-added taxes (VAT). Where merchandise exported to the United States is exempt from the VAT, we will add to the U.S. price the absolute amount of such taxes charged in the comparison sales in the home market. This is the same methodology that we adopted following the decision of the Federal Circuit in Zenith v. United States, 988 F. 2d 1573, 1582 (1993), and which was suggested by that court in footnote 4 of its decision. The Court of International Trade (CIT) overturned this methodology in Federal Mogul v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 1391 (1993), and we acquiesced in the CIT's decision. We then followed the CIT's preferred methodology, which was to calculate the tax to be added to U.S. price by multiplying the adjusted U.S. price by the foreign market tax rate; we made adjustments to this amount so that the tax adjustment would not alter a ``zero'' pre-tax dumping assessment. The foreign exporters in the Federal Mogul case, however, appealed that decision to the Federal Circuit, which reversed the CIT and held that the statute did not preclude the Department from using the ``Zenith footnote 4'' methodology to calculate tax-neutral dumping assessments (i.e., assessments that are unaffected by the existence or amount of home market VAT). Moreover, the Federal Circuit recognized that certain international agreements of the United States, in particular the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Tokyo Round Antidumping Code, required the calculation of tax-neutral dumping assessments. The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the CIT with instructions to direct the Department to determine which tax methodology it will employ. We have determined that the ``Zenith footnote 4'' methodology should be used. First, as we have explained in numerous administrative determinations and court filings over the past decade, and as the Federal Circuit has now recognized, Article VI of the GATT and Article 2 of the Tokyo Round Antidumping Code required that dumping assessments be tax neutral. This requirement continues under the new Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Second, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) explicitly amended the antidumping law to remove VAT from the home market price and to eliminate the addition of taxes to U.S. price, so that no VAT is included in the price in either market. The Statement of Administrative Action (p. 159) explicitly states that this change was intended to result in tax neutrality. While the ``Zenith footnote 4'' methodology is slightly different from the URAA methodology, in that section 772(d)(1)(C) of the pre-URAA law required that the tax be added to U.S. price rather than subtracted from home market price, it does result in tax-neutral duty assessments. In sum, we have elected to treat VAT in a manner consistent with our longstanding policy of tax neutrality and with the GATT. Final Results of the Review We determine the following weighted-average dumping margin exists: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Margin Manufacturer/exporter Period (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ausimont S.p.A....................... 08/01/93-07/31/94 6.64 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences between U.S. price and FMV may vary from the percentage stated above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions on each exporter directly to the Customs Service. [[Page 25196]] Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results of administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Ausimont will be 6.64 percent; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will be 46.46 percent for the reasons explained in Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 53735 (October 17, 1994). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. This notice serves as a final 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). 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 the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This administrative review and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22. Dated: May 9, 1996. Paul L. Joffe, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 96-12512 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P