[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25194-25196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12512]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 25195]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-475-703]
Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy; 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 October 17, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary results of its 1993-94
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on granular
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from Italy. The review covers one
manufacturer/exporter, Ausimont S.p.A. (Ausimont), for the period
August 1, 1993, through July 31, 1994. We gave interested parties an
opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. Although we received
no comments, we have changed our treatment of home market value-added
taxes as explained below. The final margin for Ausimont is listed below
in the section ``Final Results of Review.''
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 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, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4733.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 17, 1995, the Department published in the Federal
Register the preliminary results of its 1993-94 administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on granular PTFE resin from Italy (60 FR
53735). The Department has now conducted this review in accordance with
section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the
Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they
existed on December 31, 1994.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of granular PTFE
resins, filled or unfilled, and shipments of wet raw polymer. 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 the scope remains
dispositive.
The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of granular PTFE resin,
Ausimont. The review period is August 1, 1993 through July 31, 1994.
Home Market Value-Added 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 value-added taxes (VAT).
Where merchandise exported to the United States is exempt from the VAT,
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 VAT). 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 VAT from the home market price
and to eliminate the addition of taxes to U.S. price, so that no VAT 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 VAT in a manner consistent with our
longstanding policy of tax neutrality and with the GATT.
Final Results of the Review
We determine the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ausimont S.p.A....................... 08/01/93-07/31/94 6.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between U.S. price and FMV may vary from the percentage
stated above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions on
each exporter directly to the Customs Service.
[[Page 25196]]
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 Ausimont
will be 6.64 percent; (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 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; (4) the cash
deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will be 46.46
percent for the reasons explained in Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene
Resin From Italy; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 60 FR 53735 (October 17, 1994).
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.
Dated: May 9, 1996.
Paul L. Joffe,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-12512 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
