Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke in Part

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-807]

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From Korea:

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of

Intent Not To Revoke in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative

review and intent not to revoke in part

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

SUMMARY: On July 12, 1999, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and

strip (PET film) from the Republic of Korea (64 FR 37501). The review

covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the

United States and the period June 1, 1997 through May 31, 1998. We gave

interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary

results. Based upon our analysis of the comments received, we have made

certain changes for the final results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 17, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/

CVD Enforcement Group III, Office 8, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and

[[Page 62649]]

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4475

or (202) 482-5222.

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 to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (1998).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 12, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register

the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping

order on PET film from Korea. SKC Co., Ltd. and SKC America, Inc.

(collectively SKC) submitted its case brief on August 11, 1998. E.I.

DuPont de Nemours & Company and Mitsubishi Polyester Film, LLC

(collectively Petitioners) submitted rebuttal comments on August 18,

1999. The Department has conducted this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Intent Not To Revoke

On June 30, 1998, SKC requested, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2),

revocation of the order with respect to its sales of PET film from

Korea. SKC certified that: (1) It sold the subject merchandise at not

less than normal value (NV) for a period of at least three consecutive

years, (2) in the future it will not sell the subject merchandise at

less than NV, and (3) it agreed to its immediate reinstatement in the

order if the Department determines that, subsequent to revocation, it

sold the subject merchandise at less than NV.

In this case SKC does not meet the first criterion required for

revocation. In this segment of the proceeding the Department has found

that SKC sold subject merchandise at less than NV. Since SKC has not

met the first criterion for revocation, i.e., zero or de minimis

margins for three consecutive reviews, the Department need not reach a

conclusion with respect to the second and third criteria. Therefore, on

this basis, we have determined not to revoke the order on PET film from

Korea with respect to SKC.

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 June 1, 1997 through May 31, 1998. The

Department has conducted this review in accordance with section 751 of

the Act.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the

Act. Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use a daily

exchange rate to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars unless

the daily rate involves a fluctuation. The Department considers a

``fluctuation'' to exist when the daily exchange rate differs from the

benchmark rate by 2.25 percent or more. The benchmark is defined as the

moving average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we

determine a fluctuation to have existed, we generally substitute the

benchmark rate for the daily rate, in accordance with established

practice. (An exception to this rule is described below.) (For an

explanation of this method, see Policy Bulletin 96-1: Currency

Conversions (61 FR 9434, March 8, 1996).)

Our analysis of dollar-Korean-won exchange rates show that the

Korean won declined rapidly in November and December 1997.

Specifically, the won declined more than 40 percent over this two month

period. The decline was, in both speed and magnitude, many times more

severe than any change in the dollar-won exchange rate during recent

years, and it did not rebound significantly in a short time. As such,

we determine that the decline in the won during November and December

1997 was of such magnitude that the dollar-won exchange rate cannot

reasonably be viewed as having simply fluctuated at that time, i.e., as

having experienced only a momentary drop in value relative to the

normal benchmark. Accordingly, the Department used actual daily

exchange rates exclusively in November and December 1997. See Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel

Sheet and Strip from the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 30664, 30670 (June 8,

1999).

We recognize that, following a large and precipitous decline in the

value of a currency, a period may exist wherein it is unclear whether

further declines are a continuation of the large and precipitous

decline or merely fluctuations. Under the circumstances of this case,

such uncertainty may have existed following the large, precipitous drop

in November and December 1997. Thus, we devised a methodology for

identifying the point following a precipitous drop at which it is

reasonable to presume that rates were merely fluctuating. Following the

precipitous drop in November and December, we continued to use only

actual daily rates until the daily rates were not more than 2.25

percent below the average of the 20 previous daily rates for five

consecutive days. At that point, we determined that the pattern of

daily rates no longer reasonably precluded the possibility that they

were merely ``fluctuating.'' (Using a 20-day average for this purpose

provides a reasonable indication that it is no longer necessary to

refrain from using the normal methodology, while avoiding the use of

daily rates exclusively for an excessive period of time.) Accordingly,

from the first of these five days, we resumed classifying daily rates

as ``fluctuating'' or ``normal'' in accordance with our standard

practice, except that we began with a 20-day benchmark and on each

succeeding day added a daily rate to the average until the normal 40-

day average was restored as the benchmark. See Notice of Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel

Pipes and Tubes from Thailand, 64 FR 56759, 56763, October 21, 1999.

Applying this methodology in the instant case, we used daily rates

from November 3, 1997 through January 13, 1998. We then resumed the use

of our normal methodology, starting with a benchmark based on the

average of the 20 reported daily rates from January 14, 1998. We used

the normal 40-day benchmark from February 12, 1998 to the close of the

review period.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed

below.

Comment 1: Allocation of Scrap Costs

Consistent with previous administrative reviews of this case, SKC

[[Page 62650]]

objects to the Department's equal allocation of scrap costs to A-grade

and B-grade film. SKC contends that its allocation methodology is

reasonable and consistent with widely accepted accounting concepts. In

support of its argument, SKC cites to the March 8, 1996 case brief

filed in the second and third administrative reviews of this case. (See

Appendix 1 of SKC's August 11, 1999 case brief.)

SKC states that allocating the cost of scrap film equally to A-

grade and B-grade films improperly overstates the cost of B-grade films

while understating the cost of A-grade films. SKC contends that its

methodology of initially allocating costs equally among A-grade film,

B-grade film, and scrap, and then reallocating the cost of scrap to the

cost of A-grade film is consistent with accepted cost accounting

methodologies.

SKC also asserts that its methodology is consistent with the

Department's treatment of jointly produced products in numerous other

antidumping proceedings, wherein the Department recognized that a pure

quantitative, or physical measures approach to cost allocation is

unreasonable where there is significant difference in the value of the

jointly produced products.

SKC cites Elemental Sulphur from Canada 61 FR 8239, 8241-8243

(March 4, 1996) (Sulphur from Canada); Oil Country Tubular Goods from

Argentina 60 FR 33539, 33547 (June 28, 1995) (OCTG from Argentina);

Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, (60 FR 29553, 29560) (June 5,

1995) (Pineapple from Thailand) in support of its position.

SKC maintains that it is the Department's well-established practice

to calculate costs in accordance with a respondent's normal cost

accounting system unless the system results in an unreasonable

allocation of costs, and cites Pineapple from Thailand as support for

this assertion. SKC states that its reported cost of manufacturing

(COM) data were calculated in accordance with its normal and long-

established management cost accounting system. SKC notes that in the

first review of this case (covering the period November 30, 1990

through May 31, 1992), the Department allocated all costs associated

with the production of scrap film to A-grade film. SKC contends that

this methodology was upheld by the Court of International Trade (CIT).

(See E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., et al. v. United States, 4 F. Supp.

2d 1248, 1254 (Ct. Int'l. Trade 1998) (DuPont).

Finally, SKC argues that the Department's allocation methodology is

``no longer tenable'' in light of the decision reached by the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Federal Circuit) in Thai

Pineapple Public. Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States, No. 97-1424,-1437

(Fed. Cir. July 28, 1999) (Thai Pineapple). SKC asserts that in Thai

Pineapple the Court rejected the use of a weight based allocation

methodology where that methodology was inconsistent with the company's

own books and records, and where the cost allocation methodology used

by the company was neither price-based nor circular. Based upon the

foregoing, SKC concludes that the Department should allocate all scrap

costs to A-grade film.

Petitioners argue that the Department should continue to allocate

scrap costs equally between A-grade and B-grade film, as the Department

has done in the second (June 1, 1992 through May 31, 1993), third (June

1, 1993 through May 31, 1994), fifth (June 1, 1994 through May 31,

1995), and sixth (June 1, 1995 through May 31, 1996) reviews of this

case. Petitioners argue that allocating yield losses equally between A-

grade and B-grade film is consistent with the Federal Circuit's ruling

in IPSCO v. United States, 965 F. 2d. 1056 (Fed Cir. 1992) (IPSCO).

Petitioners note that the circumstances of this case are

indistinguishable from IPSCO since A-grade and B-grade films are also

produced ``simultaneously in a single production process.''

Petitioners further contend that in accepting SKC's reported costs

for the first review, the Department predicated its acceptance upon the

understanding that SKC had equally assigned costs to A- and B-grade

films. Petitioners note that SKC's allocation methodology assigns all

scrap cost to A-grade film.

Finally, petitioners assert that the facts in this case are

distinguishable from those in Thai Pineapple. Petitioners contend that

A-grade and B-grade film have identical production inputs, whereas in

Thai Pineapple the production process differs for the various pineapple

products involved. Because SKC's allocation methodology does not

allocate scrap costs equally to A-grade and B-grade film, Petitioners

assert that the Department should continue to reject SKC's allocation

methodology.

Department's Position

We agree with Petitioners and disagree with SKC. As we explained in

the final results of previous reviews of this order, we have determined

that A-grade and B-grade PET film have identical production costs.

Accordingly, we continue to rely on an equal cost methodology for both

grades of PET film in these final results. (See Polyethylene

Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from the Republic of Korea: Final

Results of Review and Notice of Revocation in Part 61 FR 35177, 33182-

83 (July 5, 1996) (Second and Third Reviews); Polyethylene

Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from the Republic of Korea; Final

Results of Review and Notice of Revocation in Part 61 FR 58374, 58375-

76, (November 14, 1996) (Fourth Review), Polyethylene Terephthalate

Film, Sheet and Strip from the Republic of Korea; Final Results of

Review 62 FR 38064, 38065-66 (Fifth Review) and Polyethylene

Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from the Republic of Korea; Final

Results of Review 63 FR 37334, 37335-36 (Sixth Review). Moreover, as

noted in the final results of the second through sixth reviews, the CIT

has also ruled that our allocation of SKC's production costs between A-

grade and B-grade film is reasonable. (See E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

Inc. et al. v. United States, 932 F. Supp. 296 (CIT 1996).)

As Petitioners have indicated, our acceptance of SKC's allocation

of scrap costs in the first review of this case was based upon our

understanding that SKC had properly allocated the costs of A-grade and

B-grade film. In that review we did not verify SKC's cost data. We

determined that no verification was necessary because SKC was verified

in the original investigation. Based upon the evidence existing in the

record during the proceeding, we accepted SKC's allocation methodology

because we were satisfied that SKC had calculated actual costs

consistent with the Federal Circuit's ruling in IPSCO. (See

Polyethylene Terphthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from the Republic of

Korea, 60 FR 42835, 42839-40 (August 17, 1995).)

During the second and third administrative reviews, however, we

carefully examined SKC's allocation methodology and conducted a

thorough verification of SKC's accounting records. We determined that

the allocation methodology employed by SKC fails to capture the actual

production costs of A-grade and B-grade film. Based upon this

determination, we have consistently required SKC to allocate yield

losses equally between A- and B-grade film since the second review of

this case. Further, we have determined that A-grade and B-grade film

undergo an identical production process that involves an equal amount

of material and fabrication expenses. The only difference in the

resulting A-and B-grade film is that at the end of the manufacturing

process a quality inspection is performed during which

[[Page 62651]]

some of the film is classified as high quality A-grade product while

other film is classified as lower quality B-grade film (see Fourth

Review at 61 FR 58375).

We continue to reject SKC's argument that DuPont affirmed its

accounting methodology. DuPont does not require the Department to

accept an allocation methodology that does not accurately capture the

actual cost of A-grade and B-grade film. In DuPont the CIT concluded

that the Department's acceptance of SKC's calculations was supported by

substantial evidence. The Court further concluded that the calculations

properly reflected SKC's actual costs of production. The CIT, however,

did not affirm SKC's allocation methodology. It merely accepted the

allocations resulting from the methodology because the record evidence

indicated that those allocations reflected actual production costs as

required by IPSCO.

In contrast, in the five previous reviews of this case, the

Department has determined that SKC's allocation methodology fails to

capture the actual cost of A-grade and B-grade film. We continue to

maintain that SKC's reliance on Sulphur from Canada, Pineapple from

Thailand , and OCTG from Argentina is misplaced. In Sulphur from

Canada, the Department accepted respondent's treatment of sulphur as a

by-product of natural gas production and its consequent assignment of

all production costs to natural gas production and none to sulphur

production in its normal records. (See Sulphur from Canada 61 FR at

8240-44 (comments 2 & 3).) The Department, instead, accounted only for

the further processing costs of sulphur that respondent incurred after

the sulphur gas was removed from the well. When accepting respondent's

methodology, the Department conducted a relative value analysis of the

sulphur and found that sulphur was an ``insignificant'' by-product of

natural gas operations. (Id. At 8241.) The Department noted that Husky

did not have the option of disposing of or selling sulphur gas in the

state it is recovered from the well, because it is a poisonous

substance and the respondent was required by law to process it to a

safe form before disposing of it. (Id at 8244.)

Likewise in OCTG from Argentina, respondent's production process

produced two grades of pipe: primary and secondary. (See OCTG from

Argentina, 60 FR at 33547.) However, because the secondary pipe was of

such an inferior quality that it could not be sold for normal OCTG

applications, the Department determined that the relative value of

secondary pipe was ``insignificant'' compared to OCTG and primary pipe.

Id Therefore, the Department allocated all common production costs to

the primary pipe and subtracted the revenue received from the small

amount of sales of secondary pipe from the total cost of manufacture of

the primary pipe. See Id.

In the instant case, A-grade and B-grade films are produced in the

same production process, with the only difference between A-grade and

B-grade films being a different end-quality categorization. B-grade

film is commercially saleable as a form of PET film. Thus, unlike the

situations in Sulphur from Canada and OCTG from Argentina, B-grade film

is not an ``insignificant'' by-product of PET film production.

Further, Pineapple from Thailand, may be distinguished from the

instant case because Pineapple from Thailand concerned the appropriate

cost methodology for products manufactured in a joint production

process where the primary raw material, pineapple fruit, is split

apart, with different parts of the raw material going through different

production processes to produce canned pineapple fruit and other

pineapple products, e.g., pineapple juice. (See Pineapple from

Thailand, 60 FR at 29560-61.) A joint production process occurs when

``two or more products result simultaneously from the use of one raw

material as production takes place.'' (See Management Accountants

Handbook, Keeler et al., Fourth Edition at 11:1.) A joint production

process produces two distinct products and the essential point of a

joint production process is that ``the raw material, labor, and

overhead costs prior to the initial split-off can be allocated to the

final product only in some arbitrary, although necessary manner.'' Id.

The identification of different grades of merchandise does not

transform the manufacturing process into a joint production process

which would require the allocation of costs. In this case, since

production records clearly identify the amount of yield losses for each

specific type of PET film, our allocation of yield losses to the films

bearing those losses is reasonable, not arbitrary. (See Fourth Review,

61 FR at 58575-76.)

It is the Department's practice to calculate costs in accordance

with a respondent's management accounting system where that system

reconciles to the respondent's normal financial and cost accounting

records and results in a reasonable allocation of costs.(See Sixth

Review, 63 FR at 37334). Management accounting deals with providing

information that managers inside an organization will use. Managerial

accounting reports typically provide more detailed information about

product costs, revenue and profits. They are used to identify problems,

objectives, or goals, and possible alternatives. In order to respond to

the Department's questionnaires, SKC officials devised a management

accounting methodology for allocating costs incurred in the film and

chip production cost centers to individual products produced during the

period of review. SKC adopted this cost accounting system to reflect a

management goal (i.e., to respond to the Department.) Under this

system, SKC assigns the yield loss from the production of A- and B-

grade films exclusively to the A-grade films. This methodology helps

management to focus on the film types with low yields. However,

notwithstanding SKC's management's concern that it accurately portray

the cost of its A-grade products, this managerial accounting

methodology is not appropriate for reporting the actual costs of A-and

B-grade products. As previously noted, A-grade and B-grade films

undergo an identical production process. B-grade film is made using the

same materials, on the same equipment, at the same time as the A-grade

film.

Because A-grade and B-grade film are made from identical production

inputs, SKC's reliance on Thai Pineapple is misplaced. As the Federal

Circuit noted, the production process ``is entirely different for the

various pineapple products produced.'' (See Thai Pineapple at 8.) In

contrast, A- and B-grade PET films are, as in the IPSCO case, produced

from an identical production process. Further, contrary to SKC's

argument, the Federal Circuit's ruling in Thai Pineapple does not

require the Department to revise its methodology in this case. In Thai

Pineapple, the Federal Circuit upheld Commerce's acceptance of the

allocation methodology in the foreign producer's normal books and

records because that methodology reasonably reflected the foreign

producer's cost of production. See Thai Pineapple at 12-14. The Federal

Circuit stated:

To the extent that the records of [the foreign producer]

reasonably reflect the costs of production, Commerce may rely upon

them. See NTN Beaning Corp., 74 F. 3d at 1206. Conversely, if the

records are not reasonably reflective of cost, Commerce may

appropriately deviate from them. See Thai Pineapple at 13.

In this case, as explained above, the Department has found the

accounting methodology employed by SKC in its

[[Page 62652]]

books does not reflect the actual costs of A- and B-grade products.

Because A- and B-grade films undergo an identical production process

using the same production inputs, the Department's allocation of scrap

cost equally to A- and B-grade film is appropriate, and is consistent

with the Federal Circuit's ruling in Thai Pineapple.

Comment 2: CEP Profit

SKC asserts that the Department failed to account for imputed

credit and domestic inventory carrying costs in its calculation of

total profit in the CEP profit calculation. SKC contends that all

imputed expenses should be included in U.S. selling expenses because

(1) SKC has already offset the interest expense that the Department

used in the calculation of total U.S. costs for these imputed expenses

and (2) adjustments for these expenses are not otherwise reflected in

the total costs that are deducted from total revenue to derive CEP

profit.

Petitioners agree with SKC that the Department incorrectly

calculated CEP profit but disagree with SKC as to the nature of the

Department's error. Petitioners claim that as a result of SKC's

specific categorization of revenues and costs, SKC has excluded the

portion of CV financing expense which reflects imputed credit and

inventory carrying costs included in U.S. expenses. (These items are

revenue amounts in the calculation of CEP.) Therefore, Petitioners

argue, SKC's total expenses are categorically different than its U.S.

expenses, and SKC's total expenses are understated by mixing elements

of revenue and cost. Petitioners assert that the Department should (1)

recalculate SKC's finance expense without adjustments for accounts

receivable and finished goods inventory, and with no adjustment for

certain interest income items, (2) exclude ``refunded customs duties''

from SKC's aggregate cost of sales, and (3) calculate U.S. expenses for

purposes of calculating CEP profit as the sum of U.S. movement

expenses, direct and indirect U.S. selling expenses, and U.S. further

manufacturing cost.

Department's Position

We have adhered to our established practice and used the actual

revenues and expenses listed in SKC's audited financial statements to

calculate CEP profit. Also, consistent with established practice, we

have excluded imputed interest expenses from the calculation of the

U.S. selling expenses as used in our CEP profit calculation and have

employed the actual interest expenses incurred by SKC in accordance

with section 772(f)(2)(D) of the Act. Because our revised calculation

of interest expense includes no offset for imputed expenses, SKC's

argument that imputed expenses should be included in the calculation of

CEP profit is moot.

In determining a company's costs for COP and CV purposes, we

include an amount for interest expense. As with other cost elements,

this cost is calculated on an annual basis. (See Certain Stainless Wire

Rods from France: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 47874, 47882 (September 11, 1996).) In these final

results, we have removed SKC's claimed deductions for imputed credit

and inventory carrying cost from its reported interest expense

calculation. This is consistent with our practice of using the same

interest expense rate for both COP and CV, and basing that calculation

upon the actual expenses shown on the financial statements. (See Notice

of Final Determination at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from

Italy, 61 FR 30326, 30333 (June 14, 1996).)

We disagree with petitioners that the interest income used as an

offset to interest expense should be disallowed. This interest income

is short-term in nature and is an allowable offset to total interest

expenses. Also, we do not accept petitioners' argument that SKC should

not be allowed to adjust its cost of sales for ``refunded customs

duties.'' The refunded duties are reflected in the cost of goods sold

in SKC's financial statement. These refunded duties, however, are not a

part of the model specific cost of manufacture to which the interest

rate is applied. (Refunded duties are included as an adjustment to the

sales price in the anti-dumping calculation.) Thus, in order to compute

the interest expense rate on the same basis to which it is being

applied, it is reasonable to add the refunded duties back to the cost

of sales in the calculation of the interest expense rate.

Finally, we disagree with Petitioners' claim that movement charges

should be included in the U.S. expenses used to calculate CEP profit.

Unlike the statutory provision that defines the ``total expenses'' to

be used in calculating CEP profit, Congress explicitly identified the

expenses that constituted total U.S. expenses in section 772(f)(2)(B)

of the Act. Section 772(f)(2)(B) of the Act provides that total U.S.

expenses used to compute CEP profit are limited to those appearing

under section 772(d) (1) and (2) of the statute. Movement expenses do

not appear under either one of those subsections, but rather are

described under section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Statute. (See ITA Policy

Bulletin 97.1, September 4, 1997 (CEP Policy Bulletin).) Therefore, in

accordance with section 772(f)(2)(B) of the Act, we have not included

movement expenses in our calculation of the total U.S. selling expenses

used to allocate CEP profit.

Comment 3: U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses and CEP Profit

SKC contends that the Department should include the U.S. indirect

selling expenses incurred in the home market in its calculation of CEP

profit. SKC notes that the Department's CEP Policy Bulletin does not

distinguish ``activities in the United States from other U.S. selling

activities'' in calculating total profit. The Petitioners did not

comment on this matter.

Department's Position

We agree with SKC. Consistent with our established practice, we

have not distinguished activities in the United States from other U.S.

selling activities in our calculation of total profit that is then

allocated to U.S. expenses. We have revised our calculations

accordingly.

Comment 4: Indirect Selling Expenses for Further Manufactured Sales

At the onset of verification, SKC submitted a corrected indirect

selling expense rate for further manufactured sales. SKC contends that

in its preliminary results, the Department erroneously applied the

revised indirect selling expense rate to all U.S. sales rather than to

the U.S. further manufuactured sales to which this calculation was

limited. The Petitioner did not comment in this matter.

Department's Position

We agree with SKC. We have revised our computer program and applied

SKC's revised indirect selling expenses only to further manufactured

sales.

Comment 5: U.S. Interest Revenue

SKC contends that the Department erroneously set interest expense

to zero for certain U.S. sales to Anacomp on which SKC earned interest

revenue. Petitioners did not comment on this matter.

Department's Position

We agree with SKC. In these final results we have revised our

computer program and adjusted for the interest expense that SKC

incurred on all of its sales to Anacomp.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our analysis of the comments received, we determine

that a

[[Page 62653]]

margin of 0.69 percent exists for SKC for the period June 1, 1997

through May 31, 1998.

The U.S. Customs Service will assess antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs Service. We have calculated an

importer specific assessment value for subject merchandise based on the

ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the

examined sales to the total entered value of sales examined.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements shall be required

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 these final results of this review, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit for SKC shall be 0.69

percent; (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 the most recent 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 percent the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV

investigation.

This notice serves as the final 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 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 351.305(a). 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 terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice is in accordance with section

751(a)(1) of the Act.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Dated: November 9, 1999.

[FR Doc. 99-30041 Filed 11-16-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P