[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2489-2491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1310]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
