[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32133-32138]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-15072]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-814]
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 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 March 2, 1994, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and
strip (PET film) from Japan. The review covers three manufacturers/
exporters of this merchandise to the United States, Toray Industries,
Inc. (Toray), Teijin, Ltd. (Teijin), and Diafoil Co. Ltd. (Diafoil),
and the period November 30, 1990 through May 31, 1992. Based on our
analysis of comments received, we have changed the final results from
those presented in our preliminary results of review.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 20, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arthur N. DuBois or Thomas F. Futtner,
[[Page 32134]] Office of Antidumping Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC. 20230, telephone: (202) 482-6312/3814.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 2, 1994, the Department published in the Federal Register
(59 FR 9960) the preliminary results of its administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on PET film (56 FR 25660, June 5, 1991). The
Department has now completed that administrative review in accordance
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Tariff Act) and 19 CFR
353.22.
One firm, Diafoil, did not respond to the Department's
questionnaire. Therefore, we are using best information otherwise
available (BIA) for cash deposit and appraisement purposes. As BIA for
Diafoil, we determined the dumping margin to be 14.00 percent, the
highest margin calculated in any administrative review or the original
investigation.
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results. We received comments from petitioners, all three
respondents and one interested party. All parties participated in the
hearing held on April 14, 1994.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by the review are shipments of all gauges of raw,
pretreated, or primed PET film, sheet, and strip, whether extruded or
coextruded. The films excluded from the scope of this order are
metallized films and other finished films that have had a least one of
their surfaces modified by the application of performance-enhancing
resin or inorganic layer 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 from Japan is currently classifiable under Harmonized
Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number 3920.62.0000. The HTS item numbers
are provided for convenience and for Customs purposes only. The written
descriptions remain dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
Comment 1: Toray Plastics America (TPA), an interested party,
argues that the Department should use BIA for Diafoil, because Diafoil
refused to answer the Department's questionnaire.
Diafoil responds that it is not uncooperative, only unresponsive.
Diafoil objects to TPA's attempt to characterize Diafoil as an
``uncooperative party'' just because Diafoil declined to respond to the
Department's questionnaire. Diafoil argues that, as a small exporter,
it did not respond because of the excessive burden and cost involved.
Department's Position: In accordance with section 776(c) of the
Tariff Act, the Department uses BIA in cases where a party refuses to
respond to the questionnaire, is unable to produce information
requested in a timely manner and in the form required, or otherwise
significantly impedes the proceedings. The Department uses a two-tiered
approach in its choice of BIA. For uncooperative respondents or
respondents who substantially impede the proceedings (first tier), the
Department uses the higher of (1) the highest rate for any company from
the original investigation or any prior administrative review or (2)
the highest rate found in the current review for any company. For
respondents which attempt to cooperate (second tier), the Department
uses the higher of (1) the highest rate ever applicable to that firm
for the subject merchandise or (2) the highest calculated rate in the
current review for any firm (see Antifriction Bearings (Other than
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts thereof from France, et al., 58 FR
39729, July 26, 1993).
Accordingly, whether Diafoil is characterized as uncooperative or
unresponsive, in accordance with the current statute, we must apply
BIA. In accordance with our two-tier BIA policy, Diafoil's rate will be
14 percent, the highest rate for any company from the original
investigation (see Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
from Japan, 56 FR 25660, June 5, 1991).
Comment 2: TPA states that since Diafoil refused to answer the
Department's questionnaire and in light of the substantial difference
between Diafoil's current deposit rate and its new BIA rate, the
Department should publish immediately a determination establishing a
new BIA deposit rate for future entries of PET film produced or
exported by Diafoil.
TPA claims that nothing in the antidumping law, or in the
Department's regulations, requires that the Department wait until the
conclusion of its review before establishing a new deposit rate for a
foreign producer or exporter that has utterly refused to participate in
the proceeding.
Department's Position: Deposit rates can only be changed after
conducting an administrative review, in accordance with Section 751 of
the Tariff Act. Our regulations require that we issue preliminary
results of review and allow parties to ask for disclosure of the
calculation methodology, submit written argument and rebuttal comments
and the opportunity to ask for hearings (19 CFR 353.22 and 353.38).
Comment 3: Toray argues that for these final results the Department
should calculate two margins for this review: one for the period
preceding issuance of the antidumping duty order (i.e., November 30,
1990, through May 31, 1991) and a second for Toray's sales in the first
12 months following issuance of the order (i.e., June 1, 1991, through
May 31, 1992). Toray maintains that the Department should instruct
Customs to use the margin from the latter period as the basis for
Toray's cash deposits on future entries.
Toray states that because antidumping duties are intended to be
remedial, rather than punitive, in nature, they should reflect a
respondent's current pricing practices. Accordingly, the Department's
final results in this review should demonstrate that Toray has
eliminated or substantially reduced its dumping margin in the period
following publication of the antidumping duty order. Toray argues that
the Department's regulations implicitly require the calculation of a
separate, weighted-average margin for a respondent's first full year of
sales under an order. If the Department fails to do this, Toray
contends, it frustrates the intent of its own regulations by
effectively extending the qualifying period for company-specific
revocations to four years, thereby making necessary additional
administrative reviews that otherwise might have been made unnecessary
by respondents' good faith efforts to amend their pricing practices
immediately after a less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation. Toray
further contends that the courts have held that a respondent's
weighted-average dumping margin should reflect a respondent's current
pricing practices.
The petitioners, E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc., Hoeschst
Celanese Corporation, and ICI Americas Inc., argue that the
Department's consistent practice during the first administrative review
is to use the period between the date provisional measures were first
applied and the month before the first anniversary date of the
antidumping duty order. This is a reasonable exercise of the
Department's administrative discretion in implementing section 751 of
the [[Page 32135]] Tariff Act, which does not offer any guidance to the
Department regarding the period covered by the first administrative
review.
The petitioners note that the Department has consistently utilized
this approach in determining the appropriate period for the first
administrative review. Furthermore, the Department has consistently
calculated assessment and deposit rates based on sales over the entire
period. Petitioners further argue that in such situations the courts
have consistently supported an agency's implementation of a statute,
citing Timken Co. v. United States, 14 CIT 753 (1990); Mart Corp. v.
United States, 486 U.S. 281 (1988); and Zenith Radio Corp. v. United
States, 437 U.S. 443, 450 (1978). Petitioners observe that none of the
cases cited by Toray in its brief relates at all to the Department's
first administrative review procedures or in any way attributes any
punitive or retaliatory characteristics to them. Further, petitioners
note that Toray cites no judicial precedent that supports its position
that the Department's current first administrative review period is not
``current'' or is ``unfair.''
Therefore, petitioners conclude, the Department has properly
determined that one-year review periods are appropriate only after the
first administrative review, which normally covers a period closer to
18 months. By honoring Toray's request, petitioners argue that the
Department would in fact be ignoring dumping which occurs earlier in
the review period, an action which would be inconsistent with the
Tariff Act and would be ``punitive'' to the domestic industry.
Department's Position: There is no statutory guidance regarding the
period to be covered by the first administrative review or the period
on which to base cash deposit rates. However, the Department's
regulations identify the period to be covered by a first administrative
review as ``the period from the suspension of liquidation * * * to the
end of the month immediately preceding the first anniversary month''
(see 19 CFR 353.22(b)(2)). As a matter of administrative practice, the
Department has consistently calculated assessment and deposit rates
based on the entire period of review. To do otherwise would invite
manipulation by parties who, depending on their point of view, could
argue that one division or another of the POR would be more favorable
to their interests. The Department considers the first review period to
be ``current'' even if it exceeds twelve months.
Finally, we are not persuaded by Toray's argument that the
Department, by not dividing the first POR into pre- and post-order
periods, undermines its own company-specific revocation procedures,
which are based on three consecutive years of no dumping. Respondents
can begin practicing pricing discipline as soon as the Department
initiates an investigation. Certainly at the time of the preliminary
determination, when suspension of liquidation occurs, respondents are
made aware of the Department's methodology and can begin to change
their prices accordingly.
Comment 4: TPA claims that, in accordance with the Department's
methodology, recently upheld in Outokumpu Copper Rolled Products AB v.
United States, 829 F.Supp. 1371, 1379-80 (CIT, 1993) (Outokumpu), many
of Teijin's U.S. sales should be treated as exporter's sales price
(ESP) transactions.
TPA asserts that, in Outokumpu, the Court held that the Department
could apply a ``purchase price'' analysis to ``closed consignment''
sales (where the exporter's U.S. subsidiary held merchandise for
``just-in-time'' delivery) if, first, the U.S. subsidiary performs
strictly ministerial functions, and, second, any warehousing operation
undertaken by the U.S. subsidiary reflects the parties' ``customary
commercial channels.'' TPA contends that Teijin does not meet either of
these criteria. First, according to TPA, Teijin has three separate U.S.
companies that account for a significant portion of U.S. sales under
review. Further, TPA claims that Teijin's questionnaire response makes
clear that the company's U.S. subsidiaries are engaged in a wide range
of sales and post-sale activities, including marketing and acting as a
selling agent. Similarly, TPA notes that Teijin has reported technical
service expenses, as well as indirect expenses, by all three U.S.
subsidiaries for the maintenance of sales staff. Finally, TPA claims
that Teijin's sales do not follow the ``customary commercial channels''
utilized by Teijin and its U.S. subsidiaries.
Teijin responds that its U.S. sales are properly analyzed as
purchase price transactions and disputes TPA's argument that, based on
criteria upheld by Outokumpu, Teijin's sales should be treated as ESP
sales. First, during the LTFV investigation, the Department verified
that the merchandise did not enter the physical inventory of the
subsidiary. Second, Teijin's subsidiaries continue to perform only
ministerial functions, processing sales-related documentation and
serving as a communication link, in connection with U.S. sales of PET
film. Finally, Teijin argues that TPA's attempt to portray Teijin's
U.S. operations as more substantial or ``substantially restructured''
are misinformed.
Department's Position: During the LTFV investigation, the
Department verified that Teijin's U.S. sales were final before
importation and did not enter inventory in the United States.
Accordingly, Teijin's sales qualified as purchase price sales. In this
review, Teijin again asserts that its U.S. subsidiaries perform only
ministerial functions and that its U.S. sales during the POR do not
enter inventory in the United States. In this review, TPA offers no
specific support for its position except to question certain selling
expenses. Further, nothing appears in the record of this review to show
that there is anything different from the investigation that would
distinguish any of the sales as ESP sales. We disagree with TPA's
comment that Teijin's questionnaire response makes it clear that it and
its U.S. subsidiaries are engaged in activities that would force the
Department to conclude that Teijin's sales should be analyzed as ESP
sales. Also, we considered these sales to be in the customary
commercial channels in the investigation, and TPA has provided no
evidence to the contrary. Finally, in our verification of Teijin's
response during the LTFV investigation, we found no additional expenses
such as technical services, advertising, or warranties on U.S. sales.
Accordingly we have accepted Teijin's claim for purchase price analysis
for the final results of administrative review.
Comment 5: TPA argues that the Department should reject Teijin's
suggested model match because the methodology is distortive and
deficient. TPA argues that the correct methodology is to first match
PET film products by their end-use and subsequently by their polymers
and gauges because this is the most accurate and administrable model
match methodology. TPA maintains that each of PET film's five primary
end-use categories requires common physical and performance
characteristics that determine the commercial utility and value of the
product and that are unique to that class.
Teijin responds that, notwithstanding its strong belief that
physical characteristics represent the most appropriate matching
methodology, in compliance with the Department's requests, it has
provided the Department with alternative product concordances with and
without end-use as a matching criteria. Therefore, in spite of Teijin's
[[Page 32136]] position that physical characteristics represent the
most appropriate matching methodology, Teijin maintains that the
Department has a complete record upon which to base its final results.
Department's Position: In developing product-specific model match
methodologies, the statutory preference is for the matching of
identical merchandise (see section 771(16)(A) of the Tariff Act). Where
this identical matching is not possible, the most similar matches are
preferred (see section 771(16)(B)).
During the review, we solicited comments from all parties on
matching criteria for comparing similar merchandise in the absence of
sales of identical merchandise in the U.S. and home markets. Based on
submissions from petitioners and respondents, no single physical
characteristic appears to be a defining criterion for all types of PET
film.
In the case of PET film, we have determined that it is appropriate
to use groups of physical characteristics based on end-use as an
organizational tool to establish similar categories of merchandise.
This methodology was adopted because of the unique circumstances of
this case, such as the complexity of the subject merchandise, the
difficulty in determining the most similar models in a consistent
manner, and the fact that it is evident that end use plays a role in
the determination of the merchandise's physical dimensions.
Therefore, we have matched by physical characteristics within these
categories to find matches of the most similar merchandise. We also
have determined that it would be inappropriate to match across
categories because this could result in more dissimilar matches rather
than in comparisons of the most similar merchandise. In these final
results we used Teijin's alternative model-matching concordance with
broad end-use categories.
Comment 6: The petitioners comment that the Department's
preliminary treatment of consumption tax for both Teijin and Toray was
not in full conformity with current Department practice. Namely, they
argue that, in calculating the consumption tax adjustments, the
Department failed to include all of the expenses incurred after the
point at which the Japanese government applies the home market
consumption tax.
Both Teijin and Toray support the Department's use of a methodology
that provides for tax neutrality in the dumping calculation. Toray,
however, takes no position with respect to petitioners' claims
regarding the imputation of the Japanese consumption tax for the
preliminary results.
Department's Position:
We agree with petitioners that the tax adjustment must be made at
the same point in the chain of commerce in each market and we have
adjusted for taxes in accordance with our practice as outlined in
Silicomanganese from Venezuela, Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204, June 17, 1994.
Comment 7: TPA asks the Department to ensure that Teijin has
properly reported all U.S. and home market sales, or reject Teijin's
questionnaire response in its entirety. In particular, TPA argues that
there is no legal basis for Teijin's original request that the
Department exclude from its review sales of certain unique grades of
PET film, including sandblasted film, embossed film, further-processed
film, ``experimental'' film, film sold on a yen-per-square meter basis,
and film sold on a yen-per-piece basis. Similarly, TPA asks the
Department to ensure that Teijin has reported all of its provisions of
sample merchandise in the United States.
Teijin responds that: (1) It has fully reported all U.S. and home
market sales; (2) it has fully reported all grades of PET film, and its
questionnaire responses clearly indicate that these sales have been
included in its computer files; and (3) its supplemental questionnaire
response states explicitly that certain sample sales, which had
originally been omitted in error, were included in the computer
listing.
Department's Position: We have reviewed Teijin's responses and have
determined that they are complete and that all grades of PET film and
all sample sales have been reported. Although Teijin originally
excluded the types of film noted by TPA, the company included these
film types in its supplemental response. Accordingly, we will continue
to rely on Teijin's submissions for the final results of administrative
review.
Comment 8: TPA argues that Teijin has refused to comply with the
Department's questionnaire in numerous critical respects, in addition
to the specific issues discussed in other comments:
Teijin has not provided affiliation and distribution
agreements that TPA claims are essential to a proper understanding of
its U.S. operations, particularly with respect to Teijin's joint
venture with Du Pont;
Teijin has failed to identify the proper dates of sale;
Teijin's submissions do not adequately describe the basis
for qualification or payment of rebates; and
Teijin has failed to report, or incorrectly reported,
numerous U.S. and home market expenses, such as technical services,
warranty claims, advertising, sales promotion, and packing costs.
Accordingly, in the absence of complete and accurate data, TPA
maintains that the Department should apply BIA in its final margin
calculations.
Teijin responds that it has provided complete and accurate data to
the Department.
Department's Position: We have reviewed Teijin's submissions and
are satisfied that Teijin's response is complete and responsive to our
questionnaire. Specifically:
Teijin has provided to the Department sufficient
information regarding its U.S. affiliations and distribution system for
us to determine that Teijin reported its sales to the first unrelated
customer.
Teijin's dates of sale, including such instances as
informal orders, blanket purchase agreements, and shipments during
ongoing price negotiations, were properly reported. Namely, Teijin
reported the date of sale as the date upon which the substantive terms
of the contract (especially price and quantity) are set. Consistent
with this reporting requirement, the date of sale reported by Teijin in
most cases was the purchase order confirmation date. Where this was not
the case, Teijin reported the date upon which price and quantity were
firmly established as the date of sale. In no case was the reported
date of sale later than the date of shipment.
Teijin's submissions adequately describe the basis for
qualification and payment of rebates as related to customer loyalty,
purchase volume and market conditions, and identifies each of its home
market and U.S. rebates on a customer- and sale-specific basis,
precisely the standard articulated by TPA in its brief.
There is nothing in the record to substantiate TPA's
assertions that Teijin's U.S. and home market expenses have been
reported incorrectly. Teijin asserts that it incurred no warranty
expenses in the United States during the period of review and that it
did not incur any technical service, advertising, sales promotion or
other expenses directly related to its U.S. sales of PET film.
Therefore, we have relied on Teijin's response for these final
results.
Comment 9: TPA argues that the Department cannot rely upon Teijin's
questionnaire response without verifying the data. TPA notes that where
[[Page 32137]] the Department has ``good cause'' to verify a
respondent's submission, it has a concomitant legal obligation to do
so, citing Smith Corona Corp. v. United States, 771 F.Supp. 389 (CIT,
1991). TPA notes that it timely requested that the Department verify
Teijin's questionnaire response in this review and that the
circumstances establish ``good cause'' for verification.
TPA argues that this review raises significant factors and issues
never before considered by the Department: cost data regarding
adjustments for differences in merchandise where similar merchandise is
used for comparison to U.S. sales; Teijin's radical restructuring of
its U.S. operations; Teijin's failure to fully respond and its
internally inconsistent responses; and the fact that the Department's
prior verification revealed significant unreported expenses and other
discrepancies in the data submitted by Teijin.
Teijin responds that the Department correctly declined to verify
Teijin's response. Teijin argues that TPA has failed to show that the
requisite ``good cause'' for verification exists in this review.
Further, Teijin contends that the Department found that TPA did not
demonstrate ``good cause'' for verification in large measure because
the respondent had passed verification in the LTFV investigation and
had furnished a ``substantial amount of detail and documentation'' in
the administrative review questionnaire response (see Small Business
Telephone Systems, 57 FR 8299). Similarly, Teijin argues that the
``new'' facts cited by TPA in support of the claim for verification are
insufficient to establish the necessary good cause. In this regard,
Teijin argues, this review is identical to that in Antifriction
Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from
France, et al. (58 FR 28360, June 24, 1992), in which the Department
rejected the petitioner's basis for requesting that the Department
conduct a more thorough verification of respondents' cost accounting
system, on the basis of several factors, including the respondent's
past verification history and the Department's evaluation of the
credibility of the data submitted.
Department's Position: In accordance with 19 CFR 353.36(a)(1)(b),
because we verified Teijin during the LTFV investigation, we were not
required to verify in this administrative review unless good cause was
shown. We agree with Teijin that no good cause was shown during this
review to compel the Department to verify Teijin's response. The
decision not to verify fully accords with past Department practice in
this regard (see Certain Small Business Telephone Systems and
Subassemblies Thereof from Korea, 57 FR 8298, March 9, 1992). Further,
because we verified the overwhelming amount of the information
submitted in the original investigation and because we have determined
Teijin's response in this review to be complete and credible, we have
also accepted the new cost data as submitted during the review.
Comment 10: The following clerical errors were noted by various
parties:
(1) The petitioners comment that the Department's test for use of
annual versus monthly weighted-average prices was mathematically
incorrect due to misplaced parentheses. Toray comments that the error
in the annual average test had no impact on the calculations. Teijin
agrees that the Department should correct the clerical error in
Teijin's POR-averaging program.
(2) The petitioners comment that the Department failed to convert
yen-denominated sales and adjustments into dollar-denominated values in
certain of Toray's U.S. sales. Toray agrees with the petitioners that
the Department should ensure that all of its conversions of both
currencies and units of measure are correct. Further, Toray suggests
that the Department should ensure that it properly converts Toray's
reported cost of production into dollars and that it properly converts
all quantities to kilograms.
(3) The petitioners argue that certain U.S. sales by Toray were
incorrectly excluded from the Department's analysis because these sales
could not be matched with any such or similar home market sales, and
the Department lacked the requisite cost data to construct values for
those sales. Petitioners note that the Department is obligated to
analyze all U.S. sales unless it can be shown that their inclusion
distorts the Department's dumping calculation. Therefore, petitioners
maintain that the Department should include these transactions in its
analysis of Toray's U.S. sales using the highest margin for any
reviewed U.S. sale by Toray as BIA.
Toray agrees with petitioners that the Department should include
various U.S. sales that were excluded in the preliminary results as
having no foreign market value (FMV), but argues that BIA need not be
used because Toray's responses contain the information necessary for
the Department to make the appropriate price comparisons.
(4) Teijin notes that the Department inadvertently included home
market sales outside the POR in its preliminary margin calculation.
Since this is contrary to the Department's stated intention to use only
sales made during the POR, Teijin suggests that this clerical error
should be corrected for the final results by eliminating the sales
prior to November 30, 1990 and after May 31, 1992, from the home market
sales database.
(5) TPA argues that Teijin's pre-sale foreign inland freight
expense was subtracted twice from FMV. TPA contends that Teijin
reported this expense twice, both separately and as part of its overall
inland freight expense. TPA notes that the Department is double-
counting an expense that should not be deducted at all, citing Ad Hoc
Committee of AZ-NM-TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland Cement v. United
States, 13 F.3d 398, 402 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Ad Hoc Committee).
Teijin states that the Department should continue to deduct
Teijin's freight costs from FMV for the final results, but should,
however, correct its inadvertent subtraction of the pre-sale inland
freight figure in calculating FMV.
(6) TPA argues that if the Department relies on a purchase price
analysis for its final results of review, Teijin's U.S. and home market
indirect expenses should not be deducted, as they were in the
preliminary results of review.
(7) Teijin notes that the Department incorrectly read Teijin's U.S.
credit insurance expense field, improperly increasing the U.S. credit
expense by 1000 times the actual cost by inadvertently omitting the
decimal point.
(8) Teijin argues that in the absence of an identical match in the
home market data base, the Department should use the most similar match
in calculating FMV, instead of second most similar as was inadvertently
done for the preliminary results.
Department's Position: We agree with all eight comments and have
recalculated our results accordingly. Specifically:
(1) We corrected the clerical error noted.
(2) We corrected the clerical error noted.
(3) We have included the Toray sales inadvertently omitted from the
preliminary results of review. We were able to make appropriate matches
and, therefore, did not need to resort to BIA.
(4) All Teijin's sales inadvertently excluded in the preliminary
results of review have been included and matched with FMVs for these
final results, with the exception of sales outside the POR.
(5) We agree with TPA that Teijin's pre-sale foreign freight was
reported separately and also was included in an overall freight total
and, therefore, was incorrectly deducted twice. Further, we
[[Page 32138]] agree with TPA that, because this is a purchase price
situation and because Teijin has not made an adequate claim for an
adjustment under the circumstance-of-sale (COS) provision of 19 CFR
353.56, in accordance with the Federal Circuit's decision in Ad Hoc
Committee, it is not appropriate to deduct pre-sale inland freight at
all and have adjusted our calculations accordingly.
(6) Teijin's U.S. and home market indirect expenses have not been
deducted for the final results of review.
(7) We corrected the clerical error noted.
(8) We have used identical or first most similar matching for our
final results of review.
Final Results of the Review
As a result of our review, we have determined that the following
margins exist for the period November 30, 1990, through May 31, 1992:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/producer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toray...................................................... 2.24
Teijin..................................................... 2.03
Diafoil.................................................... 14.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 percentages
stated above. Upon completion of the review the Department will issue
appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of these final results of administrative review for
all shipments of PET film entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after that publication date, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act, and will remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review: (1)
The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be those
outlined above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies
not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be their
previously established company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter is
not a firm covered in this review, previous reviews, or the original
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be
that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if
neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or
any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be 6.32 percent, which
is the all other rate established in the LTFV investigation, in
accordance with the Court of International Trade's (CIT's) decisions in
Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and
Federal Mogul Corporation and the Torrington Company v. the United
States 822 F Supp. 782 (CIT 1993).
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 return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written
notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with
the regulations and the terms of 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: June 14, 1995.
Paul L. Joffe,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-15072 Filed 6-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
