Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-588-707]

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Japan; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review.

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

[[Page 45141]]

SUMMARY: In response to requests by one respondent and the petitioner,

the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on granular

polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from Japan. The review period is

August 1, 1993, through July 31, 1994. This review covers one company,

Daikin Industries, Ltd. As a result of the review, the Department has

preliminarily determined that dumping margins exist for the respondent.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 30, 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, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-

4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 3, 1994, the Department published in the Federal Register

a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' (59 FR

39543) of the antidumping duty order on granular PTFE resin from Japan

(53 FR 32287, August 24, 1988). Respondent, Daikin Industries, Ltd.,

and petitioner, E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Company, requested an

administrative review in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a) (1993). On

September 16, 1994, the Department published a notice of initiation of

this review (59 FR 47609). The period of review is August 1, 1993,

through July 31, 1994. The Department is now conducting this review

pursuant to section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Tariff Act).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise stated, 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

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 Industries, Ltd. (Daikin). The period of review is August 1,

1993, through July 31, 1994.

United States Price

In calculating United States price (USP), the Department determined

both purchase price and exporter's sales price (ESP), as defined in

section 772 of the Tariff Act, to be appropriate. All sales were made

through Daikin America, Inc. (DAI), a related sales agent in the United

States, to an unrelated purchaser. However, whenever sales are made

prior to the date of importation through a related sales agent in the

United States, we typically determine that purchase price is the most

appropriate determinant of the USP if:

1. The merchandise in question was shipped directly from the

manufacturer to the unrelated buyer, without being introduced into the

inventory of the related shipping agent;

2. Direct shipment from the manufacturer to the unrelated buyers

was the customary commercial channel for sales of this merchandise

between the parties involved; and

3. The related selling agent in the United States acted only as a

processor of sales-related documentation and a communication link with

the unrelated U.S. buyers.

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Japan; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 33188 (June 27, 1995);

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: New Minivans From

Japan, 57 FR 21937, 21945 (May 26, 1992).

For Daikin's sales which satisfy the criteria listed above, we

regard the routine selling functions of the exporter as merely having

been relocated from the country of exportation to the United States,

where the sales agent performs them. Whether these functions take place

in the United States or abroad does not change the substance of the

transactions or the functions themselves, and we therefore treated

these sales as purchase price transactions in accordance with section

353.41(b) of our regulations.

DAI also maintains an inventory of subject merchandise in the

United States. Where the date of importation preceded the date of sale

and DAI's role included warehousing responsibilities in addition to

routine selling functions, we regarded sales of such merchandise as ESP

sales in accordance with section 353.41(c) of our regulations.

We based purchase price and ESP on the packed, delivered price to

unrelated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions, where

applicable, for foreign brokerage and handling, foreign inland freight,

ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S.

inland freight, U.S. duty, U.S. harbor fees and merchandise processing

fees, and inland insurance, in accordance with section 772(d) of the

Tariff Act. For ESP sales we also made deductions, where applicable,

for credit expense, replacement of defective merchandise, commissions

paid to unrelated selling agents in the United States and indirect

selling expenses, in accordance with section 772(e) of the Tariff Act.

We made an addition to USP for the Japanese consumption tax in

accordance with our practice as set forth in Silicomanganese From

Venezuela; Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

(Silicomanganese), 59 FR 31204 (June 17, 1994).

Foreign Market Value

Based on a comparison of the volume of home market and third

country sales, we determined that the home market was viable.

Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act,

we based FMV on the packed, delivered price to unrelated purchasers in

the home market.

In a preceding administrative review we found that Daikin made home

market sales below the cost of production (COP). Therefore, in

accordance with our standard practice, we also conducted a COP

investigation during the current administrative review. We calculated

COP as the sum of Daikin's reported materials, labor, factory overhead,

and general expenses. We compared COP to home market prices, net of

movement charges, price adjustments, and discounts.

As a result of our COP investigation, we found no below-cost sales,

and therefore did not disregard any home market sales as being below

cost.

We calculated FMV on a monthly weighted-average basis. Where

possible we compared all U.S. sales to sales of identical merchandise

sold in Japan. For U.S. sales in which identical merchandise was not

sold during the relevant contemporaneous period, we used as FMV

contemporaneous sales of the product that was most similar to the

merchandise involved in the U.S. sale, in accordance with section

771(16) of the Tariff Act. We matched similar products based on

physical characteristics and product specifications provided by Daikin

in its

[[Page 45142]]

questionnaire response dated February 24, 1995.

In accordance with our practice, we disregarded sample sales as

being outside the ordinary course of trade. See Granular

Polytetrafluroethylene Resin From Japan; Final Results of

Administrative Review, 58 FR at 50345 (September 27, 1993). The sales

in question represent small quantities of granular PTFE resin sold to

testing facilities in Japan at prices substantially higher than the

prices of the vast majority of Daikin's sales. Further, the sales in

question were not for consumption, but for evaluation purposes.

Where applicable, we made deductions for inland freight, discounts,

post-shipment price adjustments, and physical differences in

merchandise. To adjust for differences in circumstances of sale (COS)

between the home market and the United States, we first deducted direct

selling expenses incurred in the home market, which included credit and

replacement of defective merchandise. Home market movement expenses

incurred between the warehouse and the customer after the sale were

treated as direct COS deductions. For comparison to purchase price

sales, we then added direct selling expenses incurred in the United

States for replacement of defective merchandise, credit, and

commissions (because no commissions were paid in the home market).

Where applicable, in accordance with section 353.56(b)(1) of our

regulations, we offset U.S. commissions by deducting home market

indirect selling expenses from FMV in an amount not exceeding those

commissions. For comparison to ESP sales, in accordance with section

353.56(b)(2) of our regulations, we also deducted home market indirect

selling expenses in an amount not to exceed the sum of U.S. commissions

and indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States. Home

market movement expenses were also incurred between the factory and the

warehouse before the sale, and we have adjusted for such expenses as

indirect selling expenses under the commission offset provision of

section 353.56(b)(1) and under the ESP offset provision of section

353.56(b)(2), as appropriate. In order to adjust for differences in

packing between the two markets, we deducted home market packing costs

from FMV and added U.S. packing costs. We also adjusted for Japanese

consumption tax in accordance with our decision in Silicomanganese.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our comparison of USP with FMV, we preliminarily

determine that the following dumping margin exists:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Period (percent)

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

Daikin Industries............................... 08/01/93-

07/31/94 69.10

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

Interested parties may submit written comments on these preliminary

results. Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the

date of publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10

days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held

approximately 44 days from the date of publication. Case briefs and

other written comments from interested parties may be submitted not

later than 30 days from the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and

rebuttal comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be

filed not later than 37 days from the date of publication. The

Department will publish the final results of this administrative review

including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such

written comments or at 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 percentage stated

above. Upon completion of this review, 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 the

final results of this administrative review, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the

reviewed company will be the rate we establish in the final results of

this administrative review; (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

continue to be 91.74 percent, the rate made effective by the final

results of the most recent administrative review of the order (see PTFE

Resin From Japan, 60 FR at 33189). As noted in the Department's

previous final results in this proceeding, this rate is the ``all

others'' rate from the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements,

when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final

results of the next administrative review.

This notice also 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 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: August 16, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary, for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 95-21554 Filed 8-29-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P