[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 157 (Monday, August 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49902-49907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20212]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-583-837]
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Taiwan:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
[[Page 49903]]
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene
terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET Film) from Taiwan. This
review covers respondents, Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Ltd., (Nan Ya),
as well as Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation (SSFC) and Shinkong
Materials Technology Co. Ltd. (SMTC) (collectively, Shinkong),
producers and exporters of PET Film from Taiwan.
The Department preliminarily determines that sales of PET Film from
Taiwan have been made below normal value during the period of review.
The preliminary results are listed below in the section titled
``Preliminary Results of Review.'' Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: August 16, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Calvert, Martha Douthit, or Jun
Jack Zhao, 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) 428-3586, (202) 482-5050, or (202) 482-1396, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 1, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on PET Film from Taiwan. See Amended Final
Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip (PET Film) from Taiwan, 67 FR 46566 (July 1, 2002).
On July 1, 2009, the Department published a notice of opportunity
to request an administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation:
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 74 FR 31406 (July 1,
2009). In response, on July 30, 2009, the domestic interested parties
DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America, SKC, Inc.,
and Toray Plastics (America), Inc. requested that the Department
conduct an administrative review of Nan Ya and Shinkong's sales of PET
Film in the U.S. market.
On August 25, 2009, the Department initiated an administrative
review of Nan Ya and Shinkong. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 74 FR 42873 (August 25, 2009). On September 23, 2009, the
Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to the respondents.
During April and May 2010, the Department issued two supplemental
questionnaires to Nan Ya and one to Shinkong regarding their sales
information. Separately, the Department issued supplemental
questionnaires to both respondents from May through July regarding
their reported cost information. All responses were submitted on a
timely basis.
On March 25, 2010 the Department extended the time period for
issuing the preliminary results of the administrative review.\1\ See
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from Taiwan: Extension
of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 14423 (March 25, 2010). The revised
deadline fell on Saturday, August 7, 2010. It is the Department's long-
standing practice, however, to issue a determination the next business
day when the statutory deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday, or
any other day when the Department is closed. See Notice of
Clarification: Application of ``Next Business Day'' Rule for
Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of
1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). Accordingly, the deadline
for the completion of these preliminary results was revised to August
9, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department had previously exercised its discretion to
toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal
Government from February 5 through February 12, 2010. Thus, all
deadlines in this segment of the proceeding, including these
preliminary results, had already been extended by seven days. See
Memorandum to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import
Administration, regarding ``Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a
Result of the Government Closure During the Recent Snowstorm,''
dated February 12, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 29, 2010, and August 4, 2010, we received comments from
Petitioners offering suggestions for these preliminary results of
review for Nan Ya and Shinkong, respectively. The Department did not
have adequate time to consider these comments in their entirety for
these preliminary results. We will, however, consider them for any
upcoming supplemental questionnaires, for verification, if conducted,
and for the final results of review.
Scope of the Order
For purposes of this administrative review, the products covered
are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate
film, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded 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 more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET Film are
currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00. HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description
of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Period of Review
The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009.
Collapsing of SSFC and SMTC
The Department preliminarily determines that SSFC and SMTC should
be treated as a single entity (i.e., Shinkong) for purposes of
calculating an antidumping margin pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f). SMTC
was established in October 2004 and it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
SSFC. SSFC and SMTC produce similar or identical merchandise. During
the POR, all of the subject merchandise under review produced by SMTC
was sold to SSFC for SSFC's re-sale in the home market, U.S. market and
third countries. The level of common ownership between SSFC and SMTC
creates a significant potential for manipulation of price or
production.
Affiliation of Nan Ya With U.S. Customers
In the less-than-fair-value investigation, and in the first
administrative review, the Department determined that Nan Ya, through a
family grouping, was in a position of legal and operational control of
three U.S. customers, in accordance with section 771(33)(F) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). See Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) from Taiwan, Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 67 FR 35474, May
20, 2002. See also, ``Affiliation of Nan Ya Plastic Corporation, Ltd.,
with Certain U.S. Customers,'' dated April 1, 2004. Members of a family
involved in the ownership and management of Nan Ya also shared
ownership and management of these three U.S. companies with potential
to act in concert or act out of common interest to exert restraint or
direction over a company's activities.
On April 6, 2010, and May 27, 2010, the Department requested that
Nan Ya provide additional information regarding Nan Ya's relationship
with the U.S. customers. In this review period, Nan Ya sold the subject
merchandise to these same U.S. companies. However, Nan Ya states that
the family links are no longer present due to the passing of
[[Page 49904]]
Nan Ya's late chairman in October 2008. Yet, the passing of a single
member does not establish that Nan Ya and the three U.S. companies are
no longer directly or indirectly, legally and operationally controlled
by, or under common control, control of the family grouping.
Based on Nan Ya's responses to the Department's questionnaires
regarding ownership and management of the three U.S. companies, in
addition to evidence placed on the record resulting from the
Department's independent research regarding the relationship between
Nan Ya and these U.S. customers, the Department preliminarily
determines that Nan Ya continues to be affiliated with these U.S.
customers through a family grouping. See Memorandum to Barbara E.
Tillman, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, ``Affiliation of Nan Ya
Plastics Corporation, Ltd. (Nan Ya) with Certain U.S. Customers,''
dated August 9, 2010.\2\ The family grouping still has the potential to
act in concert or act out of common interest, to exert restraint or
direction over the companies' activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We have also placed on the record our Nan Ya affiliations
analysis from the most-recent administrative review. See Memorandum
to the File, ``Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Ltd. Affiliations
Analysis for the Period December 21, 2001 through June 30, 2003,''
dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of PET Film were made at less than
normal value (NV), we compared the respondents' export price (EP) or
constructed export price (CEP) sales made in the United States to
unaffiliated customers to NV, as described below in the ``United States
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance
with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EP and CEP of
individual transactions to monthly weighted-average NVs.
Product Comparisons
Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act, we determined that products
sold by the respondents, as described in the ``Scope of the Order''
section, above, and sold in Taiwan during the POR, to be foreign like
products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to
U.S. sales. We have relied on four criteria to match U.S. sales of
subject merchandise to comparison-market sales: specification,
thickness, thickness category, and surface treatment. Where there were
no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S.
sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product
on the basis of the characteristics listed above.
Nan Ya reported additional internal codes and product model
matching characteristics to indicate the special features of certain
subject merchandise types. However, we have determined not to include
these additional product model matching characteristics for the purpose
of these preliminary results. Interested parties will have the
opportunity to comment on the use of these additional product model
matching characteristics in their case briefs.
Level of Trade
To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade
(LOT) than U.S. sales, we examine selling functions along the chain of
distribution between the respondent and the unaffiliated customer for
EP sales and between the respondent and the affiliated U.S. importer
for CEP sales. 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 pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A)
of the Act.
In implementing these principles, we examined information provided
by Nan Ya regarding the selling functions involved in its home market
and U.S. sales, including a description of these selling functions,
listed in Exhibit SE A-5 of Nan Ya's May 5, 2010 submission. Based on
our analysis, we have preliminarily determined that Nan Ya sold at one
LOT in the home market and one LOT in the United States (including both
EP and CEP sales), as claimed by Nan Ya in its questionnaire responses.
We have also preliminarily determined that the home market and U.S.
LOTs are the same, and that, therefore, a LOT adjustment is not
warranted. We note that Nan Ya did not request a LOT adjustment.
Quarterly COP and CV
While we have analyzed the quarterly cost of production (COP) and
constructed value (CV) information from both Nan Ya and Shinkong, we
note that we have issued additional supplemental questions on this
issue. We intend to fully examine all of the quarterly COP and CV
information after the preliminary results and determine whether it is
appropriate to use shorter cost averaging periods for COP and CV in a
post-preliminary analysis memorandum.
Arm's-Length Test
The Department may calculate NV based on a sale to an affiliated
party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is
comparable to the prices at which sales are made to parties not
affiliated with the exporter or producer; i.e., sales to home market
affiliates must be at arm's-length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). Sales to
affiliated customers for consumption in the home market that are
determined not to be at arm's-length are excluded from our analysis. To
test whether sales are made at arm's-length prices, the Department
compares the prices of sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated
and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling
expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c), and in accordance
with the Department's practice, when the prices charged to an
affiliated party are, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the
prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to
that sold to the affiliated party, we determine that the sales to the
affiliated party are at arm's-length. See Antidumping Proceedings:
Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186,
69187 (November 15, 2002).
In this proceeding, Nan Ya did not have sales to affiliates in the
home market. Shinkong reported sales of the foreign like product to
affiliated customers who consumed the purchased material. Shinkong's
sales to these affiliated home market customers did not pass the arm's-
length test, and were therefore excluded from our analysis. See section
773(b)(1) of the Act.
Nan Ya Margin Calculation
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
In calculating the antidumping duty margins for Nan Ya, we used EP,
as defined in section 772(a) of the Act, for all sales that Nan Ya made
directly to unaffiliated U.S. customers. As discussed above, however,
we have preliminarily determined that certain U.S. customers were
affiliated with Nan Ya during the POR. Thus, for such sales, we used
CEP in our margin calculations, as defined in section 772(b) of the
Act.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of PET
Film in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating
normal value, we compared the volume of respondent's
[[Page 49905]]
home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of their
U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section
773(a)(1) of the Act. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the
Act, and 19 CFR 351.404(b), because Nan Ya's aggregate volume of home
market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent
of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we
have determined that the home market was viable for comparison
purposes.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
Pursuant to 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, because the Department had
disregarded certain of Nan Ya's sales in the most recently completed
review of this order, the Department had reasonable grounds to believe
or suspect that Nan Ya made home market sales at prices below COP in
this review. As a result, the Department was directed under section
773(b) of the Act to determine whether Nan Ya made home market sales
during the POR at prices below COP.
C. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP
based on the sum of Nan Ya's cost of materials and fabrication for the
foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general, and
administrative expenses (SG&A), interest expenses and home market
packing costs. See Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of
Accounting, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--Nan Ya Plastics Corporation,''
dated August 9, 2010. We applied the major input rule under section
773(f)(3) of the Act to Nan Ya's purchases of purified terephthalic
acid (PTA) from an affiliated supplier and adjusted Nan Ya's reported
cost of manufacturing to reflect the higher of transfer price, market
price or COP. We eliminated the inter-divisional profit arising from
ethylene glycol transactions between Nan Ya's Polyester Fiber division
and one of its petrochemicals divisions. In addition, we adjusted Nan
Ya's reported cost of manufacturing to include excluded pension costs
and surplus fixed costs. Finally, we adjusted Nan Ya's reported total
general and administrative expense to include the cost of temporary
plant shutdowns. These calculations include revisions by the Department
to the COP information reported by Nan Ya.
D. COP Test
On a product-specific basis, we compared the revised COP figures to
home market prices net of applicable billing adjustments, discounts and
rebates, movement charges, selling expenses, and packing to determine
whether home market sales had been made at prices below COP. In
determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below
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 made at
prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. In accordance
with section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a
given product was sold at prices less than COP, we did not disregard
any below-cost sales of that product, because the below-cost sales were
not made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a
given product was sold 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 weighted-average COP figures for the POR, they were made 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. Based on this analysis, we found that Nan Ya did have below
cost sales that must be disregarded. We used the remaining home market
sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section
773(b)(1) of the Act.
E. Constructed Value
After disregarding certain sales as below cost, as described above,
home market sales of contemporaneous identical and similar products
existed that allowed for price-to-price comparisons for all margin
calculations. Therefore, the Department did not need to rely on
constructed value for any calculations for this preliminary
determination.
F. Price-to-Price Comparisons
We calculated NV based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers
in the home market. We used Nan Ya's adjustments and deductions as
reported. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland
freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, for
comparisons involving similar merchandise, we made adjustments for cost
differences attributable to the physical differences between the
products compared, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments for differences in
circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS
adjustments for imputed credit expenses. Finally, we deducted home
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
Shinkong's Margin Calculation
Export Price
In calculating the antidumping duty margins for Shinkong, we used
EP, as defined in section 772(a) of the Act.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of PET
Film in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating
normal value, we compared the volume of respondent's home market sales
of the foreign like product to the volume of their U.S. sales of the
subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act.
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, and 19 CFR
351.404(b), because Shinkong's aggregate volume of home market sales of
the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate
volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we have determined
that the home market was viable for comparison purposes.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
Pursuant to 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, because the Department had
disregarded certain of Shinkong's sales in the most recently completed
review of this order, the Department had reasonable grounds to believe
or suspect that Shinkong made home market sales at prices below COP in
this review. As a result, the Department was directed under section
773(b) of the Act to determine whether Shinkong made home market sales
during the POR at prices below COP.
C. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP
based on the sum of Shinkong's cost of materials and fabrication for
the foreign like product, plus amounts for SG&A, interest expenses and
home market packing costs. These calculations include revisions by the
Department to the COP information reported by Shinkong. We adjusted
SSFC's total general and administrative expenses to include the cost of
temporary plant shut-downs for both SSFC and its
[[Page 49906]]
affiliated producer of merchandise under consideration, SMTC. See
Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, ``Cost of
Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the
Preliminary Results--Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation,'' dated
August 9, 2010.
D. COP Test
On a product-specific basis, we compared the revised COP figures to
home market prices net of applicable billing adjustments, discounts and
rebates, movement charges, selling expenses, and packing to determine
whether home market sales had been made at prices below COP. In
determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below
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 made at
prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. In accordance
with section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a
given product was sold at prices less than COP, we did not disregard
any below-cost sales of that product, because the below-cost sales were
not made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a
given product was sold 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 weighted-average COP figures for the POR, they were made 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. Based on this analysis, we found that Shinkong did have below-
cost sales that must be disregarded. We used the remaining home market
sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section
773(b)(1) of the Act.
E. Constructed Value
After disregarding certain sales as below cost, as described above,
home market sales of contemporaneous identical and similar products
existed that allowed for price-to-price comparisons for all margin
calculations. Therefore, the Department did not need to rely on
constructed value for any calculations for this preliminary
determination.
F. Price-to-Price Comparisons
We calculated NV based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers
in the home market.\3\ We used Shinkong's adjustments and deductions as
reported. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland
freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, for
comparisons involving similar merchandise, we made adjustments for cost
differences attributable to the physical differences between the
products compared, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments for differences in COS in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410. We made COS adjustments for imputed credit expenses. Finally,
we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Shinkong sold a small amount of foreign like product to its
affiliates in the home market for consumption during the POR. These
sales have failed the arm's-length test and therefore have been
excluded from the calculation of NV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currency Conversions
Pursuant to section 773(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, we made
currency conversions for Nan Ya's and Shinkong's sales based on the
daily exchange rates in effect on the dates of the relevant U.S. sales
as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following
weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2008,
through June 30, 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Manufacturer/exporter margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Ltd.................... 19.78
Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation............... 5.89
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure and Public Comment
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties
in this review within five days of the date of publication of this
notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may
request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in
the Federal Register. See 19 CFR 351.310. If a hearing is requested,
the Department will notify interested parties of the hearing schedule.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
results of this review. Interested parties must submit case briefs
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal
briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must
be filed not later than five days after the time limit for filing case
briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d) (for a further discussion of case
briefs and rebuttal briefs, respectively). Parties who submit case
briefs or rebuttal briefs in this review are requested to submit with
each argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the
argument, and (3) a table of authorities. Executive summaries should be
limited to five pages total, including footnotes.
We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review,
including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written
comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results
in the Federal Register. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. We will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of merchandise
produced and/or exported by Nan Ya and Shinkong. The Department intends
to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of the final results of review. For assessment purposes,
where possible, we calculated importer-specific (or customer-specific)
ad valorem assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of
the dumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total
entered value of those same sales. See 19 CFR 351.212(b). However,
where the respondents did not report the entered value for their sales,
we will calculate importer-specific (or customer-specific) per unit
duty assessment rates. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above
de minimis.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all
shipments of PET Film from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final
results of this administrative review, as provided for by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for companies under
review will be the rate established in the final results of this review
(except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5
percent, no
[[Page 49907]]
cash deposit will be required); (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 less-than-fair-value investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; 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 the all
others rate for this proceeding, 2.40 percent. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves 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 Department's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: August 9, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-20212 Filed 8-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P