[Federal Register: May 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 24547-24552]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05my08-441]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-520-803)
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the United
Arab Emirates: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postponement of Final Determination
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department)
preliminarily determines that Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet,
and Strip (PET Film) from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is being, or
is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value
(LTFV), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are listed in
the ``Preliminary Determination'' section of this notice. Interested
parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Pursuant to a request from an interested party, we are postponing our
final determination to not later than 135 days after publication of the
preliminary determination.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 5, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Kirby or Myrna Lobo, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3782 or (202) 482-2371, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This investigation was initiated on October 18, 2007. See
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) from
Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Thailand, and the United Arab
Emirates: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations (Notice of
Initiation), 72 FR 60801 (October 26, 2007). On November 13, 2007, the
United States International Trade Commission (ITC) preliminarily
determined that, pursuant to section 733(a) of the Act, there is a
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is
materially injured by reason of imports of PET Film from Brazil, China,
Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates. See Investigation Nos. 731-TA-
1131-1134 (Preliminary): Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip from Brazil, China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates, 72 FR
67756 (November 13, 2007) (ITC Preliminary Determination). The domestic
interested parties are DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film
of America, Inc., SKC, Inc. and Toray Plastics (America), Inc.
(collectively, the petitioners). The respondent for this investigation
is Flex Middle East FZE (Flex FZE).
On November 27, 2007, the Department issued its sections A through
E questionnaires to Flex FZE. On December 19, 2007, Flex FZE submitted
its section A response. On January 18, 2008, Flex FZE submitted its
sections B and C responses. On January 23, 2008, the petitioners made a
timely request pursuant to section 733(c)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.205(e) for a postponement of the preliminary determinations with
respect to Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Thailand, and the
United Arab Emirates. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip from Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Thailand, and the
United Arab Emirates: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 7710 (February 11, 2008).
On February 6, 2008, the petitioners submitted a timely allegation
that home market sales were being made at prices below the cost of
production and requested that the Department initiate a sales-below-
cost investigation of Flex FZE pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(d)(2)(B). On
February 8, 2008, the Department issued its first supplemental
questionnaire to Flex FZE. On February 27, 2008, Flex FZE submitted its
response to the first supplemental questionnaire. On February 29, 2008,
the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Flex FZE.
On February 29, 2008, the Department initiated a sales-below-cost-
investigation of Flex FZE and requested that Flex FZE respond to the
section D questionnaire. See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman,
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, from the Team, Petitioners'
Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Flex Middle East
FZE (Flex FZE) (Cost Allegation Memorandum) (February 29, 2008), on
file in the Central Record Unit, room 1117 of the main Department of
Commerce building (CRU). On March 12, 2008, Flex FZE submitted its
response to the second supplemental questionnaire. On March 14, 2008,
Flex FZE submitted its response to the section D questionnaire.
On March 21, 2008, the petitioners submitted an allegation pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.301(d)(5) that certain U.S. sales by Flex FZE were
targeted for dumping. On March 27, 2008, the Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire for sections A through D to Flex FZE. On
March 31, 2008, Flex FZE submitted comments regarding the petitioners'
targeted dumping allegation. On April 1, 2008, the Department issued a
letter to Flex FZE to clarify the March 27, 2008, supplemental
questionnaire. On April 8, 2008, Flex FZE submitted its response to the
sections A through D supplemental questionnaire. On April 11, 2008, the
Department issued questions to the petitioners regarding its targeted
dumping allegation. On April
[[Page 24548]]
21, 2008, the petitioners submitted a response to the Department's
questions regarding the targeted dumping allegation.
Respondent Identification
Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the
subject merchandise. Section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department
discretion, when faced with a large number of producers/exporters, to
limit its examination to a reasonable number of such companies if it is
not practicable to examine all companies. Where it is not practicable
to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise, this
provision permits the Department to investigate either (A) a sample of
exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid
based on the information available to the Department at the time of
selection or (B) producers/exporters accounting for the largest volume
of the merchandise under investigation that can reasonably be examined.
In the petition, the petitioners identified one potential producer and
exporter of PET Film in the UAE: Flex FZE.
Based on our analysis of import data obtained from U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), we selected one producer/exporter, Flex FZE,
as the mandatory respondent in this investigation because this company
is the only producer of UAE subject merchandise exported to the United
States during the POI. Therefore, the Department determined that Flex
FZE is the sole producer and exporter of PET Film in the UAE. For a
complete analysis of our respondent selection, see Memorandum to
Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office 6, ``Antidumping Duty
Investigation on PET Film from the UAE - Respondent Selection,''
November 27, 2007 (Respondent Selection Memorandum). Therefore,
pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department has
calculated an individual dumping margin for the selected producer/
exporter.
Postponement of Final Determination
Section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that a final determination
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of
exports of the subject merchandise. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the
Department's regulations requires that exporters requesting
postponement of the final determination must also request an extension
of the provisional measures referred to in section 733(d) of the Act
from a four-month period to not more than six months. We received a
request to postpone the final determination and extend the provisional
measures from Flex FZE on April 18, 2008. Because this preliminary
determination is affirmative, the request for postponement was made by
an exporter who accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the
subject merchandise, and there is no compelling reason to deny the
respondent's request, we have extended the deadline for issuance of the
final determination until the 135th day after the date of publication
of this preliminary determination in the Federal Register and we will
extend the provisional measures to not more than six months.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2006 through June 30,
2007.
Scope of the Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are all gauges of raw,
pre-treated, or primed PET Film, whether extruded or co-extruded.
Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at
least one of its surfaces modified by the application of a performance-
enhancing resinous or inorganic layer more than 0.00001 inches thick.
Also excluded is Roller transport cleaning film which has at least one
of its surfaces modified by application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR
latex. Tracing and drafting film is also excluded. PET Film is
classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and purposes of Customs and Border Protection
(CBP), our written description of the scope of this investigation is
dispositive.
Party Comments on Scope and Model Matching
On October 30, 2007, the Department asked all parties in this
investigation and in the concurrent antidumping duty investigations of
PET Film from Brazil, the People's Republic of China (PRC), and
Thailand, for comments on the appropriate product characteristics for
defining individual products. In addition, the Department requested all
parties in this investigation and in the concurrent antidumping duty
investigations of PET Film from Brazil, the PRC, and Thailand, to
submit comments on the appropriate model matching methodology. See
Letter from Robert James, Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement 7, dated
October 7, 2007. We received comments from petitioners on November 6,
2007, requesting that the Department include the grade of PET Film in
the model match criteria. Additionally, petitioners requested that the
Department include a field identifying whether or not the PET Film has
been coextruded. In its November 29, 2007 questionnaire, the Department
requested that respondent report the grade of the PET Film, but did not
request a field identifying whether the PET Film is coextruded. For
purposes of this preliminary determination, the Department has
determined that it is unnecessary to change the proposed product
characteristics and model matching methodology with regard to
coextrusion. For purposes of distinguishing subject merchandise, the
Department will take into account the grade of the PET Film, as
advocated by petitioners in their submission.
On November 15, 2007, Avery Dennison requested that the Department
find that ``release liner,'' a PET film product treated on one or both
sides with a specially-cured silicon coating, is outside the scope of
these investigations. Petitioners filed a submission objecting to Avery
Dennison's request on November 29, 2007; petitioners re-submitted their
objections with amended bracketing on December 14, 2007, and the
document was accepted for the record on that date. Petitioners argue
that release liner is ``PET film that clearly falls within the scope of
these investigations.'' See Petitioners' December 14, 2007 submission
at 1 and 2. Avery Dennison responded to the petitioners comments on
February 1, 2008.
In accordance with section 731(i) of the Act, we have determined
that the descriptions of the merchandise contained in the petition and
in our Notice of Initiation support the conclusion that release film is
of the same class or kind of merchandise covered by the scope of the
proposed antidumping duty order. See also generally 19 CFR
351.225(k)(1). The product descriptions in the petition and in the
Department's Notice of Initiation specifically exclude finished films
with a ``performance enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than
0.00001 inches thick.'' There is nothing in the proposed scope language
of either the petition or our Notice of Initiation that excludes
products bearing a performance enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of
less than 0.00001
[[Page 24549]]
inches from the scope of the order. Moreover, there is no language in
either the proposed scope language of the petition or our Notice of
Initiation that limits the scope of the investigation to ``PET base
film,'' (i.e., PET film prior to the application of in-line coatings),
as Avery Dennison suggests. In addition, release liner shares the
chemical composition of PET film described in the proposed scope of the
petition and Notice of Initiation.
One of the purposes of a less than fair value investigation is to
decide the merchandise specifically covered by the scope of the
ultimate antidumping duty order. Based upon the foregoing, we have
preliminarily determined that release film is of the same class or kind
of merchandise as that described in the petition and in the
Department's Notice of Initiation. Thus, we have determined that
release film is covered by the scope of the antidumping investigation
of PET film from Thailand. For a full discussion of this issue, see the
memorandum titled ``Antidumping Duty Investigations on Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET film) from Brazil, the
People's Republic of China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates,''
from Micheal J. Heaney, Senior Case Analyst, to Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated April 25,
2008, issued concurrently with this notice.
We have relied on four criteria to match U.S. sales of subject
merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like product:
grade, specification, thickness, and surface treatment. Where there
were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in
the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S.
sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the
characteristics listed above.
Targeted Dumping
On March 21, 2008, the petitioners submitted a timely allegation
that Flex FZE engaged in targeted dumping during the POI in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.301(d)(5). On March 31, 2008, Flex FZE submitted
comments in response to the petitioners' targeted dumping allegation.
On April 11, 2008, the Department requested additional information from
the petitioners regarding their targeted dumping allegation. The
additional information requested was filed on April 21, 2008.
Therefore, there was not sufficient time to analyze the information and
fully consider the petitioners' allegation for this preliminary
determination. The Department will issue a decision regarding targeted
dumping for this investigation following the issuance of the
preliminary determination, and will allow parties to comment on it
prior to the final determination.
Date of Sale
It is the Department's practice to use invoice date as the date of
sale. The regulations further provide that the Department may use a
date other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that
a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or
producer establishes the material terms of sale (i.e., price and
quantity). See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see also Allied Tube and Conduit
Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-92 (CIT 2001). Flex
FZE reported invoice date as its date of sale for both its home market
and U.S. market sales during the POI.
Based on Flex FZE's questionnaire responses, we preliminarily
determine that invoice date is the appropriate date of sale in both
markets. Flex FZE stated in its February 26, 2008 supplemental
questionnaire response that the company reported invoice date as the
date of sale because that is the date when the price and quantity are
finally set. In addition, Flex FZE stated that changes between the
order date and the invoice date can occur, but records of these types
of changes are not maintained electronically. In its February 26, 2008
supplemental response, Flex FZE provided two examples for home market
sales where changes occurred between order date and invoice date. We
issued a supplemental questionnaire on March 31, 2008 requesting Flex
FZE to provide information indicating changes between order date and
invoice date for U.S. sales during the POI. Flex FZE responded that no
such changes had occurred in the U.S. market during the POI.
On April 25, 2008, the Department issued an additional supplemental
questionnaire for further information regarding date of sale in the
U.S. market. We intend to continue evaluating whether invoice date
appropriately represents the date on which the material terms of sale
are set in the U.S. market.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of PET Film from the UAE were made in
the United States at less than normal value (NV), we compared the
constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the
``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections below. In
accordance with section 777A(d)(1) of the Act, we calculated the
weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to the weighted-
average of CEP.
Constructed Export Price
For the price to the United States, pursuant to section 772(b) of
the Act, we used CEP because all sales to the United States were made
by Flex America Inc., Flex FZE's U.S. subsidiary, and Flex America Inc.
made the sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States
of the subject merchandise. We based CEP on the packed prices charged
to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States and the
applicable terms of sale. See Flex FZE's December 19, 2007 section A
questionnaire response.
The Department calculated Flex FZE's starting price as its gross
unit price to its unaffiliated U.S. customers, making adjustments where
necessary for billing adjustments and early payment discounts, pursuant
to section 772(c)(1) of the Act. Where applicable, the Department made
deductions for movement expenses (foreign inland freight, international
freight, U.S. movement, U.S. customs duty and brokerage, and post-sale
warehousing) in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.401(e). In accordance with sections 772(d)(1) and (2) of the Act,
we also deducted, where applicable, U.S. direct selling expenses,
including warranty, credit expenses, U.S. commissions, and U.S.
indirect selling expenses and U.S. inventory carrying costs incurred in
the United States and in the UAE associated with economic activities in
the United States. We also deducted CEP profit in accordance with
section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
Normal Value
Home Market Viability and Comparison Market Selection
To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the
home market (i.e., the UAE) to serve as a viable basis for calculating
NV, we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the
foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(II) of the Act, because
the aggregate quantity (or, if quantity is not appropriate, value) of
the foreign like product sold by Flex FZE in its home market is five
percent or more of the aggregate quantity of the subject merchandise
sold in the United States or for export to the United States, we
determined that Flex FZE's sales of PET Film in the UAE were sufficient
to find
[[Page 24550]]
the home market viable for comparison purposes. Accordingly, we
calculated NV for Flex FZE based on sales prices to UAE customers.
Cost of Production Analysis
Based on our analysis of the petitioners' allegation, we found that
there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Flex FZE's
sales of PET Film in the home market were made at prices below its COP.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, we initiated
a sales-below-cost investigation to determine whether Flex FZE had
sales that were made at prices below its respective COPs. See Cost
Allegation Memorandum.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP
based on the sum of Flex FZE's cost of materials and fabrication for
the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative
expenses (``G&A''), and interest expenses. We relied on the COP
information provided by Flex FZE in its questionnaire response except
in the following instances.
Pursuant to section 773(f)(3) of the Act, we adjusted Flex FZE's
reported cost of manufacturing to reflect the higher of the transfer
price, the market price, and the affiliate's cost of production for PET
chips purchased by Flex FZE from affiliated suppliers. In addition,
pursuant to section 773(f)(2) of the Act, we adjusted Flex FZE's
reported cost of manufacturing to reflect the higher of the transfer
price and the market price for chemicals purchased by Flex FZE from
affiliated suppliers.
We adjusted UFlex Limited's (UFlex Limited is Flex FZE's parent
company) cost of goods sold used as the denominator in the calculation
of the reported financial expense ratio to include depreciation expense
and to exclude inter-unit purchases of raw materials which are
eliminated on UFlex Limited's consolidated financial statements. For
further details regarding these adjustments, see Memorandum from Ernest
Gziryan to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, ``Cost of
Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the
Preliminary Determination - Flex Middle East FZE'' (April 25, 2008).
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP to the home market sales prices of the foreign like
product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to
determine whether the sale prices were below the COP. The prices were
exclusive of any applicable movement charges, direct and indirect
selling expenses, and packing expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether, within an extended period of
time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and whether such
sales were not made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of
the Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market
sales of a given model were at prices below the COP, we did not
disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we determined that
the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time in
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the
respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices less
than COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because: (1) they were
made within an extended period of time in ``substantial quantities,''
in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2)
based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the
POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all
costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. During the POI, none of Flex UAE's home market
sales were disregarded. For further information on the results of Flex
UAE's cost test, see Memorandum to the File, from Douglas Kirby through
Dana Mermelstein, Analysis of Flex Middle East FZE, dated April 25,
2008 (Flex FZE Preliminary Analysis Memorandum), on file in CRU.
Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers in the
UAE and matched U.S. sales to NV. We made deductions, where
appropriate, for billing adjustments, discounts, rebates, movement
expenses, and packing pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In
addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.
Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset
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 CEP transaction. The LOT
in the comparison market is the LOT of the starting-price sales in the
comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, the LOT of the sales from
which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For CEP sales, the LOT is
that of the constructed sale from the exporter to the affiliated
importer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(ii). See also Micron Technology, Inc.
v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
To determine whether comparison market sales are at a different LOT
from U.S. sales, we examined 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, the Department makes an LOT adjustment in
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, we
examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the
chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. We analyze
whether different selling activities are performed, and whether any
price differences (other than those for which other allowances are made
under the Act) are shown to be wholly or partly due to a difference in
LOT between the CEP and NV. Under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, we
make an upward or downward adjustment to NV for LOT if the difference
in LOT involves the performance of different selling activities and is
demonstrated to affect price comparability, based on a pattern of
consistent price differences between sales at different LOTs in the
country in which NV is determined. Finally, if the NV LOT is at a more
advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP, but the data
available do not provide an appropriate basis to determine a LOT
adjustment, we reduce NV by the amount of indirect selling expenses
incurred in the foreign comparison market on sales of the foreign like
product, but by no more than the amount of the indirect selling
expenses incurred for CEP sales. See section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act
(the CEP offset provision).
[[Page 24551]]
In analyzing differences in selling functions, we determine whether
the LOTs identified by the respondent are meaningful. See Antidumping
Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27371 (May 19,
1997). If the claimed LOTs are the same, we expect that the functions
and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party
claims that LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the
functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. See
Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.
For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in
the price after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section
772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology Inc. v. United States, 243 F.
3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We reviewed the selling functions
and services performed by Flex FZE on CEP sales for three channels of
distribution relating to the CEP LOT, as described by Flex FZE in its
questionnaire responses, after these deductions. We have determined
that the selling functions performed by Flex FZE on its U.S. sales (all
of which are CEP sales) are similar because for all U.S. sales, Flex
FZE provides almost no selling functions to its U.S. affiliate, Flex
America, in support of the three channels of distribution. See Flex UAE
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for additional information regarding
Flex FZE's selling functions for CEP sales. Accordingly, because the
selling functions provided by Flex FZE for CEP sales are minimal, and
the selling functions provided by Flex America to unaffiliated
customers in the United States in all three channels of distribution
are substantially similar and are provided at the same degree of
service, we preliminarily determine that there is one CEP LOT in the
U.S. market.
According to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, a CEP offset is
appropriate when the LOT in the home market is at a more advanced stage
than the LOT of the CEP sales and there are no data available to
determine the existence of a pattern of price difference. Flex UAE
reported that it provided minimal selling functions and services for
the one (CEP) LOT in the United States and that, therefore, the
comparison market LOT is more advanced than the CEP LOT. Based on our
analysis of the channels of distribution and selling functions
performed by Flex FZE for sales in the comparison market and CEP sales
in the U.S. market, we preliminarily find that the comparison market
LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution when compared to CEP
sales because Flex FZE provides many more selling functions in the
comparison market at a higher level of service as compared to the
selling function it performs for its CEP sales. For a discussion of the
proprietary information regarding Flex FZE's comparison market selling
functions, see Flex FZE Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. Thus, we find
that Flex FZE's comparison market sales are at a more advanced LOT than
its CEP sales. In addition, we preliminarily determine there is only
one LOT in the comparison market. Therefore, there are no data
available to determine the existence of a pattern of price differences;
nor do we have any other information that provides an appropriate basis
for determining a LOT adjustment. Therefore, consistent with section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, we applied a CEP offset to NV for CEP
comparisons.
To calculate the CEP offset, we deducted from NV the comparison
market indirect selling expenses for comparison market sales that were
compared to U.S. CEP sales. We limited the comparison market indirect
selling expense deduction by the amount of the indirect selling
expenses deducted in calculating CEP as required under section
772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.
Currency Conversions
The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the
Federal Reserve Bank. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from
France, 68 FR 47049, 47055 (August 7, 2003), remaining unchanged in
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France, 68 FR 69379
(December 12, 2003). However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track
or publish exchange rates for the UAE dirham. Therefore, we made
currency conversions from UAE dirhams to U.S. dollars based on the
daily exchange rates from Factiva, a Dow Jones & Reuters Retrieval
Service. Factiva publishes exchange rates for Monday through Friday
only. We used the rate of exchange on the most recent Friday for
conversion dates involving Saturday and Sunday, where necessary. See
e.g., Certain Steel Nails From the United Arab Emirates: Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination, 73 FR 3945 (January 23, 2008).
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify the
information upon which we will rely in making our final determination.
All-Others Rate
Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all others rate is
equal to the weighted average of the dumping margins of each respondent
investigated, excluding zero or de minimis margins and any margins
determined exclusively under section 776 of the Act. Flex UAE is the
only respondent in this investigation for which the Department has
calculated a company-specific rate. Therefore, for purposes of
determining the all-others rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of
the Act, we are using the rate calculated for Flex UAE as the all-
others rate, as referenced in the ``Preliminary Determination'' section
below.
Preliminary Determination
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Producer/Exporter Average Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flex Middle East FZE................................... 2.45[percnt]
All Others............................................. 2.45[percnt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all
entries of PET Film from the UAE that are entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this
notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to require a cash
deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dumping
margin, as indicated in the chart above, as follows: (1) the rate for
the firm listed above will be the rate we have determined in this
preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified
in this investigation, but the producer is, the rate will be the rate
established for the producer of the subject merchandise; (3) the rate
for all other producers or exporters will be the all others rate listed
above. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in
effect until further notice.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination. If the
Department's final determination is affirmative, the ITC
[[Page 24552]]
will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this
preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination
whether imports of PET Film from the UAE materially injure, or threaten
material injury to, the U.S. industry.
Public Comment
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties
in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested
parties are invited to comment on the preliminary determination.
Interested parties may submit case briefs to the Department no later
than seven days after the date of the issuance of the final
verification report in this proceeding. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i).
Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to the issues raised
in the case briefs, must be filed within five days from the deadline
date for the submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1) and
(2). A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive
summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the
Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total,
including footnotes. Further, we request that parties submitting briefs
and rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a copy of the public
version of such briefs on diskette.
In accordance with section 774 of the Act, the Department will hold
a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an
opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs,
provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party. If a
request for a hearing is made in this investigation, the hearing will
tentatively be held two days after the rebuttal brief deadline date at
the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in a room to be determined.
Parties should confirm by telephone, the date, time, and location of
the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled date.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate
in a hearing if one is requested, must submit a written request to the
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice.
Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to
be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). At the hearing, oral presentations
will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections
733(f) and 777(I)(1) of the Act.
Dated: April 25, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-9844 Filed 5-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S