[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33188-33189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-15610]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[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 January 30, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results
of its 1992-93 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from Japan (60 FR 5622).
The review covers one manufacturer/exporter. The review period is
August 1, 1992, through July 31, 1993. 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: June 27, 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, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202)
482-4733.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 30, 1995, the Department published in the Federal
Register the preliminary results of its 1992-93 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 statutes 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, 1992, through July 31, 1993.
Analysis of Comments Received
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results. We received a case brief from petitioner, E. I. Du
Pont de Nemours & Company (Du Pont), and case and rebuttal briefs from
Daikin.
Issues Raised by Du Pont
Comment 1: Du Pont argues that, although the Department determined
that Daikin's U.S. sales included both purchase price and exporter's
sales price (ESP) transactions, the Department should treat all of
Daikin's U.S. sales as ESP transactions. Du Pont claims that Daikin's
wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary, Daikin America, Inc. (DAI), is actively
involved in all critical aspects of Daikin's U.S. sales process. Du
Pont claims that DAI has become a full-fledged sales, marketing and
technical services organization, and that DAI now runs Daikin's PTFE
business in the United States. Du Pont claims that DAI's activities and
responsibilities go beyond the more limited ``paper pusher'' role of a
related party in purchase price transactions.
Daikin argues that the Department correctly determined that some of
Daikin's U.S. sales were purchase price sales, and that the facts
surrounding Daikin's purchase price sales are easily distinguishable
from those sales treated as ESP transactions. Daikin argues that, as in
the first review, the Department applied its three-prong test for
determining whether a transaction should be treated as a purchase price
or as an ESP sale. Daikin notes that, as in the first review, the
Department determined that sales meeting the criteria set forth in the
test were properly treated as purchase price sales. See Granular
Polyvtetrafluoroethylene Resin From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 50343 (September 27, 1993) (PTFE I).
DOC Position: We agree with Daikin. In reaching our preliminary
results of review, we examined DAI's role to determine whether Daikin's
sales were purchase price or ESP. See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene
Resin From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 60 FR 5622 (January 30, 1995). We applied a
three-part test, as outlined in the preliminary results, and in PTFE I,
58 FR at 50344. For certain sales, DAI merely facilitated the sales
process, which was handled directly by Daikin in Japan. Daikin
controlled pricing and selling decisions, while DAI acted as a
communication link between Daikin and unrelated commission agents
responsible for making sales. There is no evidence that would indicate
that DAI performed more than routine selling functions with regard to
these sales, which we therefore continue to regard as purchase price
transactions.
For other sales we found that DAI had inventoried the subject
merchandise in warehouses in the United States based upon anticipated
demand.
We determined that these sales were ESP sales, which Daikin has not
challenged.
Comment 2: Du Pont claims that the Department failed to include
several [[Page 33189]] ESP sales in the preliminary results. The
Department analyzed ESP transactions with entry dates that fell within
the period of review (POR). Du Pont argues that the Department's
established policy is to analyze ESP sales by date of sale rather than
date of entry, because ESP sales frequently enter the United States
prior to the actual date of sale. Du Pont argues that the Department
should revise its calculations to analyze ESP sales by sale date
instead of entry date.
Daikin agrees that the Department's calculations should be revised
in order to capture all ESP transactions with sale dates during the
POR.
DOC Position: We agree. We erroneously analyzed ESP sales by entry
date rather than sale date, as is our established practice. We have
revised the calculations for these final results.
Issue Raised by Daikin
Comment 3: Daikin argues that the Department should reduce the
quantity sold on U.S. sales by the quantity of returned merchandise in
order to account for losses incurred by Daikin for the replacement of
defective merchandise, which, Daikin stated, cannot be resold. Daikin
notes that, according to the Department's analysis memorandum, the
Department intended to adjust the quantity sold by the quantity of
returned merchandise.
Antidumping Duty Order on Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from
Japan--Analysis Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Second Review of
Daikin Industries (December 2, 1994) (Analysis Memorandum).
Daikin states that such an adjustment is necessary in order to
avoid double counting the costs and expenses associated with returned
merchandise, because all expenses related to returns are reported under
separate variables and are already incorporated in the margin
calculation. According to Daikin, failure to make the adjustment would
result in the same merchandise contributing a second time to an
increase in dumping duties when the Department calculates duties for
the returned quantity. Furthermore, Daikin argues that the Department
routinely adjusts for returns by deducting the amount returned from the
original transaction.
DOC Position: We agree with Daikin. We intended to adjust the
quantity of U.S. sales by deducting the quantity of returned defective
merchandise. Analysis Memorandum at 2. The returned merchandise can be
tied to the related sale by invoice number. We made a similar
adjustment for returns associated with home market sales. We have
revised our calculations for these final results to adjust U.S. sales
quantities to account for returns.
Final Results of the Review
As a result of the comments received, we have revised our
preliminary results and determine that the following margin exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daikin Industries............................. 08/01/92-07/ 23.33
31/93.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
PTFE I
These deposit requirements, when imposed, 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: June 21, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-15610 Filed 6-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
