[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5622-5623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-2233]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-588-707]
Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Japan; Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests by a respondent and petitioners, the
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on granular
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from Japan. The review period is
August 1, 1992, through July 31, 1993. This review covers one company,
Daikin Industries, Ltd. As a result of the review, the Department has
preliminarily determined that dumping margins exist for the respondent.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 1995.
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 NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4733.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 3, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register
a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' (58 FR
41239) of the antidumping duty order on granular PTFE resin from Japan
(53 FR 32287, August 24, 1988). Respondent Daikin Industries, Ltd., and
petitioners E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Company and ICI Americas, Inc.,
requested an administrative review in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)
(1993). On September 30, 1993, the Department published a notice of
initiation of this review (58 FR 51053), which covers the period August
1, 1992, through July 31, 1993. The Department is now conducting this
review pursuant to section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Tariff Act).
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 Industries, Ltd. (Daikin). The period of review is August 1,
1992, through July 31, 1993.
United States Price
In calculating United States price (USP), the Department determined
both purchase price (PP) and exporter's sales price (ESP), as defined
in section 772 of the Tariff Act, to be appropriate. All sales were
made through Daikin America, Inc. (DAI), a related sales agent in the
United States, to an unrelated purchaser. However, whenever sales are
made prior to the date of importation through a related sales agent in
the United States, we typically determine that PP is the most
appropriate determinant of the USP if:
1. The merchandise in question was shipped directly from the
manufacturer to the unrelated buyer, without being introduced into the
inventory of the related shipping agent;
2. Direct shipment from the manufacturer to the unrelated buyers
was the customary commercial channel for sales of this merchandise
between the parties involved; and
3. The related selling agent in the United States acted only as a
processor of sales-related documentation and a communication link with
the unrelated U.S. buyers.
Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Japan; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 50343, 50344 (September
27, 1993); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: New
Minivans From Japan, 57 FR 21937, 21945 (May 26, 1992).
For Daikin's sales which satisfy the criteria listed above, we
regard the routine selling functions of the exporter as merely having
been relocated from the country of exportation to the United States,
where the sales agent performs them. Whether these functions take place
in the United States or abroad does not change the substance of the
transactions or the functions themselves, and we therefore treated
these sales as PP transactions in accordance with Sec. 353.41(b) of the
Department's regulations.
During the period of review DAI began to inventory subject
merchandise in the United States based on anticipated demand. Where
DAI's role included warehousing responsibilities in addition to routine
selling functions, such that the date of importation preceded the date
of sale, we regarded sales of such merchandise as ESP sales in
accordance with Sec. 353.41(c) of the Department's regulations.
We based PP and ESP on the packed, delivered price to unrelated
purchasers in the United States. We made deductions, where applicable,
for foreign brokerage and handling, foreign inland freight, ocean
freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. inland
freight, U.S. duty, U.S. harbor fees and merchandise processing fees,
and inland insurance, in accordance with section 772(d) of the Tariff
Act. We also treated certain early payment discounts as reductions in
price, and deducted them accordingly, in accordance with the
Department's policy. See Sonco Steel Tube Div. v. United States, 714
F.Supp 1218, 1222 (CIT 1989). For ESP sales we also made deductions,
where applicable, for credit expense, replacement of defective
merchandise, commissions paid to unrelated selling agents in the United
States and indirect selling expenses, in accordance with section 772(e)
of the Tariff Act.
We made an addition to USP for the Japanese consumption tax in
accordance with our practice as set forth in Silicomanganese From
Venezuela; Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
(Silicomanganese), 59 FR 31204 (June 17, 1994).
Foreign Market Value
Based on a comparison of the volume of home market and third
country sales, we determined that the home market was viable.
Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act,
we based FMV on the packed, delivered price to unrelated purchasers in
the home market.
In the preceding administrative review we found that Daikin made
home market sales below the cost of production (COP). Therefore, in
accordance with our standard practice, we also conducted a COP
investigation during the current administrative review. We calculated
COP as the sum of Daikin's reported materials, labor, factory overhead,
and general expenses. [[Page 5623]] We compared COP to home market
prices, net of movement charges, price adjustments, and discounts.
As a result of our COP investigation, we found no below-cost sales,
and therefore did not disregard any home market sales as being below
cost.
We calculated FMV on a monthly weighted-average basis. We compared
all U.S. sales to sales of identical merchandise in Japan. In
accordance with our practice in this case, we disregarded sample sales
as being outside the ordinary course of trade. The sales in question
represent small quantities of granular PTFE resin sold to testing
facilities in Japan at prices substantially higher than the prices of
the vast majority of Daikin's sales. Further, the sales in question
were not for consumption, but for evaluation purposes. See PTFE Resin
From Japan, 58 FR at 50345.
Where applicable, we made deductions for inland freight, discounts,
and post-shipment price adjustments. To adjust for differences in
circumstances of sale between the home market and the United States, we
first deducted direct selling expenses incurred in the home market,
which included credit and replacement of defective merchandise. For
comparison to PP sales, we then added direct selling expenses incurred
in the United States for replacement of defective merchandise, credit,
and commissions (because no commissions were paid in the home market).
Where applicable, in accordance with Sec. 353.56(b)(1) of the
Department's regulations, we offset U.S. commissions by deducting home
market indirect selling expenses from FMV in an amount not exceeding
those commissions. For comparison to ESP sales, in accordance with
Sec. 353.56(b)(2) of the Department's regulations, we deducted home
market indirect selling expenses in an amount not to exceed the sum of
U.S. commissions and indirect selling expenses incurred in the United
States.
On January 5, 1994, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
in The Ad Hoc Committee of AZ-NM-TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland
Cement v. United States, 13 F.3d 398 (Fed. Cir. 1994), held that the
Department could not deduct home market movement charges from FMV
pursuant to its inherent power to fill in the gaps in the antidumping
statute. Accordingly, we now adjust for home market movement expenses
under the circumstance-of-sale (COS) provision of 19 CFR 353.56 and the
offset provisions of 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1) and (2), as appropriate. In
this review, home market movement expenses incurred between the
warehouse and the customer after the sale were treated as direct COS
deductions. Home market movement expenses were also incurred between
the factory and the warehouse before the sale, and we have adjusted for
such expenses as indirect selling expenses under the commission offset
provision of 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1) and under the ESP offset provision of
19 CFR 353.56(b)(2), as appropriate.
In order to adjust for differences in packing between the two
markets, we deducted home market packing costs from FMV and added U.S.
packing costs. We also adjusted for Japanese consumption tax in
accordance with our decision in Silicomanganese.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our comparison of USP with FMV, we preliminarily
determine that the following dumping margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daikin Industries....................... 08/01/92-07/31/93 23.19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties may submit written comments on these preliminary
results. Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the
date of publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10
days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held
approximately 35 days from the date of publication. Case briefs and
other written comments from interested parties may be submitted not
later than 21 days from the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and
rebuttal comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be
filed not later than 28 days from the date of publication. The
Department will publish the final results of this administrative review
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such
written comments or at a hearing.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentages stated
above. Upon completion of this review, 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 the
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act:
(1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be those
rates established in the final results of this administrative review;
(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 continue to be 91.74 percent, the
rate made effective by the final results of the most recent
administrative review of the order (see PTFE Resin From Japan, 58 FR at
50346). As noted in the Department's previous final results in this
proceeding, this rate is the ``all others'' rate from the LTFV
investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain
in effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 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.
Dated: December 23, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-2233 Filed 1-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
