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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-30041

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Notice
- **Published:** November 17, 1999
- **Citation:** 64 FR 62648

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-30041. Public record. Not legal advice.