Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-707]

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Japan; 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 January 30, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results

of its 1992-93 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on

granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from Japan (60 FR 5622).

The review covers one manufacturer/exporter. The review period is

August 1, 1992, through July 31, 1993. We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. Based upon our

analysis of the comments received we have changed the margin

calculation. The final margin for Daikin Industries (Daikin) is listed

below in the section ``Final Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 27, 1995.

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, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202)

482-4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 30, 1995, the Department published in the Federal

Register the preliminary results of its 1992-93 administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on granular PTFE resin from Japan. There

was no request for a hearing. The Department has now conducted this

review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Tariff Act).

Applicable Statutes and Regulations

Unless otherwise stated, all citations to the statutes and to the

Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they

existed on December 31, 1994.

Scope of the Review

The antidumping duty order covers granular PTFE resins, filled or

unfilled. 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 scope

remains dispositive.

The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of granular PTFE resin,

Daikin. The review period is August 1, 1992, through July 31, 1993.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received a case brief from petitioner, E. I. Du

Pont de Nemours & Company (Du Pont), and case and rebuttal briefs from

Daikin.

Issues Raised by Du Pont

Comment 1: Du Pont argues that, although the Department determined

that Daikin's U.S. sales included both purchase price and exporter's

sales price (ESP) transactions, the Department should treat all of

Daikin's U.S. sales as ESP transactions. Du Pont claims that Daikin's

wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary, Daikin America, Inc. (DAI), is actively

involved in all critical aspects of Daikin's U.S. sales process. Du

Pont claims that DAI has become a full-fledged sales, marketing and

technical services organization, and that DAI now runs Daikin's PTFE

business in the United States. Du Pont claims that DAI's activities and

responsibilities go beyond the more limited ``paper pusher'' role of a

related party in purchase price transactions.

Daikin argues that the Department correctly determined that some of

Daikin's U.S. sales were purchase price sales, and that the facts

surrounding Daikin's purchase price sales are easily distinguishable

from those sales treated as ESP transactions. Daikin argues that, as in

the first review, the Department applied its three-prong test for

determining whether a transaction should be treated as a purchase price

or as an ESP sale. Daikin notes that, as in the first review, the

Department determined that sales meeting the criteria set forth in the

test were properly treated as purchase price sales. See Granular

Polyvtetrafluoroethylene Resin From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 50343 (September 27, 1993) (PTFE I).

DOC Position: We agree with Daikin. In reaching our preliminary

results of review, we examined DAI's role to determine whether Daikin's

sales were purchase price or ESP. See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene

Resin From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 60 FR 5622 (January 30, 1995). We applied a

three-part test, as outlined in the preliminary results, and in PTFE I,

58 FR at 50344. For certain sales, DAI merely facilitated the sales

process, which was handled directly by Daikin in Japan. Daikin

controlled pricing and selling decisions, while DAI acted as a

communication link between Daikin and unrelated commission agents

responsible for making sales. There is no evidence that would indicate

that DAI performed more than routine selling functions with regard to

these sales, which we therefore continue to regard as purchase price

transactions.

For other sales we found that DAI had inventoried the subject

merchandise in warehouses in the United States based upon anticipated

demand.

We determined that these sales were ESP sales, which Daikin has not

challenged.

Comment 2: Du Pont claims that the Department failed to include

several [[Page 33189]] ESP sales in the preliminary results. The

Department analyzed ESP transactions with entry dates that fell within

the period of review (POR). Du Pont argues that the Department's

established policy is to analyze ESP sales by date of sale rather than

date of entry, because ESP sales frequently enter the United States

prior to the actual date of sale. Du Pont argues that the Department

should revise its calculations to analyze ESP sales by sale date

instead of entry date.

Daikin agrees that the Department's calculations should be revised

in order to capture all ESP transactions with sale dates during the

POR.

DOC Position: We agree. We erroneously analyzed ESP sales by entry

date rather than sale date, as is our established practice. We have

revised the calculations for these final results.

Issue Raised by Daikin

Comment 3: Daikin argues that the Department should reduce the

quantity sold on U.S. sales by the quantity of returned merchandise in

order to account for losses incurred by Daikin for the replacement of

defective merchandise, which, Daikin stated, cannot be resold. Daikin

notes that, according to the Department's analysis memorandum, the

Department intended to adjust the quantity sold by the quantity of

returned merchandise.

Antidumping Duty Order on Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from

Japan--Analysis Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Second Review of

Daikin Industries (December 2, 1994) (Analysis Memorandum).

Daikin states that such an adjustment is necessary in order to

avoid double counting the costs and expenses associated with returned

merchandise, because all expenses related to returns are reported under

separate variables and are already incorporated in the margin

calculation. According to Daikin, failure to make the adjustment would

result in the same merchandise contributing a second time to an

increase in dumping duties when the Department calculates duties for

the returned quantity. Furthermore, Daikin argues that the Department

routinely adjusts for returns by deducting the amount returned from the

original transaction.

DOC Position: We agree with Daikin. We intended to adjust the

quantity of U.S. sales by deducting the quantity of returned defective

merchandise. Analysis Memorandum at 2. The returned merchandise can be

tied to the related sale by invoice number. We made a similar

adjustment for returns associated with home market sales. We have

revised our calculations for these final results to adjust U.S. sales

quantities to account for returns.

Final Results of the Review

As a result of the comments received, we have revised our

preliminary results and determine that the following margin exists:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Period (percent)

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

Daikin Industries............................. 08/01/92-07/ 23.33

31/93.

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

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between United States price and foreign market value may

vary from the percentage stated above. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.

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 Daikin will be the rate shown above;

(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 (LTFV) 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; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all

other manufacturers or exporters will be 91.74 percent, the ``all

others'' rate from the LTFV investigation, for the reasons explained in

PTFE I

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 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: June 21, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 95-15610 Filed 6-26-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P