Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Japan; Preliminary Results and Termination, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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