Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-807]

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Korea:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper

Review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from one respondent, the Department

of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a new shipper review of the

antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and

strip (PET film) from the Republic of Korea. The review covers one

manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States

and the period July 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998. We preliminary

determine that Hyosung Corporation (Hyosung) did not sell subject

merchandise below normal value (NV) during the period of review. If

these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review,

we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess no antidumping

duties for Hyosung for the period covered by this new shipper review.

[[Page 41381]]

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary

results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested

to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of issues and (2) a

summary of the arguments (no longer than five pages, including

footnotes).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 30, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or John Kugelman,

AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, Office 8, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration, US Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202) 482-4475-0649, respectively.

APPLICABLE STATUTE: Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the

amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In

addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's

regulations are the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (1998).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 28, 1998, the Department received a request from

Hyosung for a new shipper review pursuant to section 751(a)(2) of the

Act and Sec. 351.214(b) of the Department's regulations. On February 2,

1999, we published the notice of initiation for this new shipper review

(64 FR 5030).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are shipments of all gauges of raw,

pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and

strip, whether extruded or coextruded. The films excluded from this

review are metallized films and other finished films that have had at

least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a

performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of 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 U.S. Customs purposes. The written description

remains dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage.

The review covers the period July 1, 1998 through December 31,

1998. The Department is conducting this review in accordance with

section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of PET film in the United States were

made at less than fair value, we compared U.S. Price NV, as described

in the ``United States Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this

notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated

monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual

U.S. transactions.

United States Price (USP)

In calculating USP, the Department treated Hyosung's sales as

export price (EP) sales, because the merchandise was sold to

unaffiliated U.S. purchasers prior to the date of information and

constructed export price (CEP) methodology was not otherwise indicated.

See section 772(a) of the Act.

EP was based on the delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in

the United States. We made adjustments, where applicable, for Korean

inland freight, Korean brokerage charges, ocean freight, marine

insurance, U.S. brokerage charges, U.S. inland freight, and U.S.

customs duties. We made an addition to EP for duty drawback pursuant to

section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

Normal Value (NV)

In order to determine whether there were sufficients sales of PET

film in the home market (HM) to serve as a viable basis for calculating

NV, we compared the volume of HM sales of PET film to the volume of PET

film sold in the United States, in accordance with section

773(a)(1)(C). Hyosung's aggregate volume of HM sales of the foreign

like product was greater than five percent of its respective aggregate

volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Therefore, we have

based NV on HM sales.

In accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we adjusted NV,

where appropriate, by deducting home market packing expenses and adding

U.S. packing expenses. We also adjusted NV for differences in credit

expenses, warehousing expenses, and postage fees. We made a deduction

from NV for inland freight.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the

extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison

market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction.

The NV LOT is that of the starting price sales in the comparison market

or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A

expenses and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the

starting price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the

importer. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sales from the

exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP

sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions

along the chain of distribution between the producer and the

unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a

different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as

manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the

sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of

the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is

more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis

for determining whether the differences in the levels between NV and

CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section

773(A)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). (See e.g., Certain

Carbon Steel Plate from south Africa, Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).)

In implementing these principles in this review, we asked Hyosung

to identify the specific differences and similarities in selling

functions and/or support services between all phases of marketing in

the home market and the United States. Hyosung identified one channel

of distribution in the home market: sales to end-users. Hyosung

performed a similar level of order processing, delivery arrangement,

and customer liaison on each of its HM sales. Therefore, we determine

that one LOT exists for all of Hyosung's HM sales.

For the U.S. market Hyosung reported one LOT, EP sales made

directly to its U.S. customers. When we compared EP sales to HM sales,

we determined that sales in both markets were made at the same LOT. For

both EP and HM transactions Hyosung sold directly to the customer and

provided similar levels of order processing, delivery arrangement, and

customer liaison. Based upon the foregoing, we determined that Hyosung

sold at the same LOT in the United States as it did in its home market,

and consequently no LOT adjustment is warranted.

[[Page 41382]]

Preliminary Results of Review

We preliminarily determine that a margin of 0.00 percent exists for

Hyosung for the period July 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998. We will

disclose calculations performed in connection with these preliminary

results of review within 10 days after the date of any public

announcement, or, if there is no public announcement, within 5 days of

publication of this notice. Interested parties may submit case briefs

and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of

publication. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited

to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than

5 days after the deadline for filing case briefs. Any interested party

may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held 2 days after the deadline for filing rebuttal

briefs unless the Secretary alters the date. The Department will issue

the final results of this new shipper review, which will include the

results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments,

within 90 days after the date of these preliminary results.

Upon completion of this new shipper review, the Department shall

determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries. We have calculated importer-specific ad valorem

duty assessment rates based on the total amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales as a percentage of the total value of

those sales. These rates will be assessed uniformly on all entries made

during the POR. The Department will issue appraisement instructions

directly to Customs. The final results of this review shall be the

basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of

merchandise covered by the determination and for future deposits of

estimated duties.

Upon completion of this review, the posting of a bond, or security

in lieu of cash deposit, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the

Act and Sec. 351.214(e) of the Department's regulations, will no longer

be permitted and, should the final results yield a margin of dumping, a

cash deposit will be required for each entry of the merchandise.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

upon completion of the final results of this new shipper review for all

shipments of PET film from the Republic of Korea entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the

final results of this new shipper review, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Hyosung will be the

rate established in the final results of this new shipper review; (2)

for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in

this review but covered in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to

be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final

results for which the manufacturer or exporter received a company-

specific rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review

or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash

deposit rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the

merchandise in the final results of this review or the LTFV

investigation; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is

a firm covered in this or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate

will be 21.5%, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV

investigation.

This notice also services as a preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 new shipper review and notice are in accordance with section

751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d).

Dated: July 23, 1999.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-19606 Filed 7-29-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M