[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 146 (Friday, July 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41380-41382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-19606]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-807]
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Korea:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request from one respondent, the Department
of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a new shipper review of the
antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and
strip (PET film) from the Republic of Korea. The review covers one
manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States
and the period July 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998. We preliminary
determine that Hyosung Corporation (Hyosung) did not sell subject
merchandise below normal value (NV) during the period of review. If
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review,
we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess no antidumping
duties for Hyosung for the period covered by this new shipper review.
[[Page 41381]]
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested
to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of issues and (2) a
summary of the arguments (no longer than five pages, including
footnotes).
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 30, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or John Kugelman,
AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, Office 8, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, US Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202) 482-4475-0649, respectively.
APPLICABLE STATUTE: Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) are references to the
provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the
amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In
addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's
regulations are the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (1998).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 28, 1998, the Department received a request from
Hyosung for a new shipper review pursuant to section 751(a)(2) of the
Act and Sec. 351.214(b) of the Department's regulations. On February 2,
1999, we published the notice of initiation for this new shipper review
(64 FR 5030).
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of all gauges of raw,
pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and
strip, whether extruded or coextruded. The films excluded from this
review are metallized films and other finished films that have had at
least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a
performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of 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 is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(HTS) subheading 3920.62.00.00. The HTS subheading is provided for
convenience and for U.S. Customs purposes. The written description
remains dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage.
The review covers the period July 1, 1998 through December 31,
1998. The Department is conducting this review in accordance with
section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of PET film in the United States were
made at less than fair value, we compared U.S. Price NV, as described
in the ``United States Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this
notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated
monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual
U.S. transactions.
United States Price (USP)
In calculating USP, the Department treated Hyosung's sales as
export price (EP) sales, because the merchandise was sold to
unaffiliated U.S. purchasers prior to the date of information and
constructed export price (CEP) methodology was not otherwise indicated.
See section 772(a) of the Act.
EP was based on the delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in
the United States. We made adjustments, where applicable, for Korean
inland freight, Korean brokerage charges, ocean freight, marine
insurance, U.S. brokerage charges, U.S. inland freight, and U.S.
customs duties. We made an addition to EP for duty drawback pursuant to
section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
Normal Value (NV)
In order to determine whether there were sufficients sales of PET
film in the home market (HM) to serve as a viable basis for calculating
NV, we compared the volume of HM sales of PET film to the volume of PET
film sold in the United States, in accordance with section
773(a)(1)(C). Hyosung's aggregate volume of HM sales of the foreign
like product was greater than five percent of its respective aggregate
volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Therefore, we have
based NV on HM sales.
In accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we adjusted NV,
where appropriate, by deducting home market packing expenses and adding
U.S. packing expenses. We also adjusted NV for differences in credit
expenses, warehousing expenses, and postage fees. We made a deduction
from NV for inland freight.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the
extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction.
The NV LOT is that of the starting price sales in the comparison market
or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A
expenses and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the
starting price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the
importer. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sales from the
exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the
sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of
the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is
more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis
for determining whether the differences in the levels between NV and
CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section
773(A)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). (See e.g., Certain
Carbon Steel Plate from south Africa, Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).)
In implementing these principles in this review, we asked Hyosung
to identify the specific differences and similarities in selling
functions and/or support services between all phases of marketing in
the home market and the United States. Hyosung identified one channel
of distribution in the home market: sales to end-users. Hyosung
performed a similar level of order processing, delivery arrangement,
and customer liaison on each of its HM sales. Therefore, we determine
that one LOT exists for all of Hyosung's HM sales.
For the U.S. market Hyosung reported one LOT, EP sales made
directly to its U.S. customers. When we compared EP sales to HM sales,
we determined that sales in both markets were made at the same LOT. For
both EP and HM transactions Hyosung sold directly to the customer and
provided similar levels of order processing, delivery arrangement, and
customer liaison. Based upon the foregoing, we determined that Hyosung
sold at the same LOT in the United States as it did in its home market,
and consequently no LOT adjustment is warranted.
[[Page 41382]]
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that a margin of 0.00 percent exists for
Hyosung for the period July 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998. We will
disclose calculations performed in connection with these preliminary
results of review within 10 days after the date of any public
announcement, or, if there is no public announcement, within 5 days of
publication of this notice. Interested parties may submit case briefs
and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of
publication. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited
to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than
5 days after the deadline for filing case briefs. Any interested party
may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 2 days after the deadline for filing rebuttal
briefs unless the Secretary alters the date. The Department will issue
the final results of this new shipper review, which will include the
results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments,
within 90 days after the date of these preliminary results.
Upon completion of this new shipper review, the Department shall
determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. We have calculated importer-specific ad valorem
duty assessment rates based on the total amount of antidumping duties
calculated for the examined sales as a percentage of the total value of
those sales. These rates will be assessed uniformly on all entries made
during the POR. The Department will issue appraisement instructions
directly to Customs. The final results of this review shall be the
basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of
merchandise covered by the determination and for future deposits of
estimated duties.
Upon completion of this review, the posting of a bond, or security
in lieu of cash deposit, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the
Act and Sec. 351.214(e) of the Department's regulations, will no longer
be permitted and, should the final results yield a margin of dumping, a
cash deposit will be required for each entry of the merchandise.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon completion of the final results of this new shipper review for all
shipments of PET film from the Republic of Korea entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this new shipper review, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Hyosung will be the
rate established in the final results of this new shipper review; (2)
for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in
this review but covered in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to
be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final
results for which the manufacturer or exporter received a company-
specific rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review
or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash
deposit rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the
merchandise in the final results of this review or the LTFV
investigation; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is
a firm covered in this or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate
will be 21.5%, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV
investigation.
This notice also services as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 new shipper review and notice are in accordance with section
751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d).
Dated: July 23, 1999.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-19606 Filed 7-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
