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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[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 August 30, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results

of its 1993-94 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on

granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from Japan (60 FR 45141).

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

August 1, 1993, through July 31, 1994. 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: January 26, 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, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202)

482-4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

Register (60 FR 45140) the preliminary results of its 1993-94

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 Tariff Act 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, 1993, through July 31, 1994.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received a case brief from Daikin.

Issue Raised by Daikin

Daikin claims that, in calculating foreign market value, the

Department incorrectly deducted from the unit price an amount

representing a price adjustment. Daikin argues that this

[[Page 2490]]

adjustment should have been added to the unit price. Daikin notes that

in previous reviews it reported a price decrease, which needed to be

deducted from the unit price. However, in the current review, Daikin

reported a price adjustment, which can be either a price increase,

reported as a positive number, or a price decrease, reported as a

negative number. As such, Daikin requests that the Department add the

reported price adjustment to the unit price, which effectively adds

price increases and deducts price decreases.

DOC Position: We agree with Daikin. We erroneously deducted

Daikin's reported price adjustment from the unit price. Daikin reported

both price increases and price decreases, and, for these final results,

we added the price adjustment to the unit price to correctly account

for both price increases and price decreases.

Home Market Consumption 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 consumption taxes. Where

merchandise exported to the United States is exempt from the

consumption tax, 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 consumption taxes). 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 consumption taxes from the home

market price and to eliminate the addition of taxes to U.S. price, so

that no consumption tax 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 consumption taxes in a manner

consistent with our longstanding policy of tax neutrality and with the

GATT.

Final Results of Review

As a result of the comments received, and the changes in our

treatment of consumption taxes, we have revised our preliminary results

and determine that the following margin exists:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Period (percent)

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

Daikin Industries.................... 08/01/93-07/31/94 53.68

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

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 Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from

Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR

50343 (September 27, 1993). 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.

[[Page 2491]]

Dated: December 14, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-1310 Filed 1-25-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P