[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 242 (Friday, December 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78968-78973]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31771]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-520-803]
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the United
Arab Emirates: 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
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene
terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET Film) from the United Arab
Emirates (UAE). This review covers respondents, JBF RAK LLC (JBF), and
FLEX Middle East FZE (FLEX), producers and exporters of PET Film from
the UAE. The Department preliminarily determines that sales of PET Film
from the UAE have been made below normal value (NV) during the November
6, 2008, through October 31, 2009 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: December 17, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Huston, 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) 482-
4261 or (202) 482-1396, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 10, 2008, the Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on PET Film from the UAE. See
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Brazil, the
People's Republic of China and the United Arab Emirates: Antidumping
Duty Orders and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value for the United Arab Emirates, 73 FR 66595 (November 10, 2008)
(Order). On November 2, 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
56573 (November 2, 2009). In response, on November 24,
[[Page 78969]]
2009, and November 30, 2009, JBF and FLEX, respectively, requested that
the Department conduct an administrative review of their sales of PET
Film in the U.S. market. On November 30, 2009, Dupont Teijin Films,
Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc., SKC, Inc. and Toray Plastics (America)
Inc. (collectively, the petitioners) requested administrative reviews
of JBF and FLEX.
On December 23, 2009, the Department initiated an administrative
review of JBF and FLEX. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation
in Part, 74 FR 68229, 68232 (December 23, 2009). On January 7, 2010,
the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to the
respondents. FLEX timely submitted section A of the questionnaire on
January 29, 2010, and sections B and C on February 19, 2010. JBF timely
submitted its section A of the questionnaire on February 9, 2010, and
sections B and C on March 4, 2010. On April 19, 2010, JBF submitted
additional information regarding its responses to sections B and C of
the original questionnaire. On June 4, 2010, JBF submitted information
requested by the Department regarding its reported exports to the
United States. Also on June 4, 2010, the Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire to FLEX; FLEX submitted its timely response
on July 23, 2010. On June 15, 2010, the Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire to JBF; JBF submitted its timely response on
July 13, 2010.
On May 6, 2010, the petitioners submitted an allegation of sales at
prices below the cost of production (COP) against JBF and requested
that the Department issue a section D questionnaire to JBF. On May 11,
2010, JBF filed comments on the petitioners' sales below cost
allegation, claiming that the petitioners' allegation was untimely. On
May 21, 2010, the petitioners provided additional information requested
by the Department, to establish that sales below COP by JBF were
representative of the broader range of foreign products which may be
used to determine the NV of U.S. products. On June 21, 2010, the
Department found that there was sufficient information to initiate an
investigation of whether JBF had made home market sales at prices below
COP. See Memorandum to Barbara Tillman, ``The Petitioners' Allegation
of Sales Below the Cost of Production,'' (June 21, 2010) (COP
Initiation Memorandum).\1\ In the COP Initiation Memorandum, the
Department determined that, because JBF filed information on April 19,
2010 that had not been provided with its original March 4, 2010
response, the submission was incomplete and the petitioners'' sales-
below-cost allegation was timely filed (i.e., within 20 days of the
April 19, 2010 response), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(d)(2)(ii).
On June 28, 2010, the Department issued a request for JBF to complete
section D of the original questionnaire; JBF submitted its response on
August 10, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public versions of all memoranda referenced in this notice
are on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (CRU) in Room
7046 of the main Department building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 4, 2010, JBF submitted information requested by the
Department regarding its reported exports to the United States. Also on
June 4, 2010, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to
FLEX; FLEX submitted its timely response on July 23, 2010. On June 15,
2010, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to JBF; JBF
submitted its timely response on July 13, 2010. On July 14, 2010, the
Department extended the time period for issuing the preliminary results
of the administrative review. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet and Strip From the United Arab Emirates: Extension of Time Limit
for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75
FR 40776 (July 14, 2010). On August 3, 2010, FLEX submitted revised
section B and C responses to correct certain formatting errors in their
submission of July 23, 2010. On August 23, 2010, the Department issued
a second supplemental questionnaire to JBF; JBF submitted a timely
response on September 1, 2010. On August 27, 2010, the Department
issued a supplemental section D questionnaire to JBF; JBF submitted a
timely response on September 23, 2010. On September 27, 2010, the
Department issued a second supplemental section D questionnaire; JBF
submitted a timely response on October 5, 2010. JBF submitted minor
corrections to previously filed information on November 18, 2010. As
discussed below, these corrections concerned its knowledge that certain
sales included in its home market sales database were being exported to
third countries.
Verification
A cost verification of JBF was conducted from October 24 through
October 28, 2010. See Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, ``Verification of
Cost Response of JBF RAK LLC in the Antidumping Review of Polyethylene
Terephthalate (PET) Film from the United Arab Emirates,'' (November 30,
2010) (Cost Verification Report). The Department intends to conduct a
sales verification of JBF following the issuance of these preliminary
results of review.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order are all gauges of raw, pre-
treated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, whether extruded or
co-extruded. 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. 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 customs purposes,
our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Period of Review
Since this is the first administrative review, the period of review
(POR) is different from the standard twelve month POR. The POR is
November 6, 2008 through October 31, 2009.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ November 6, 2008, is the date the International Trade
Commission (ITC) published its final determination that the domestic
industry was threatened with material injury. According to section
736(b)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the
Department cannot assess duties on merchandise entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption, before the publication date of the
final affirmative ITC determination when the ITC finds the domestic
industry was ``threatened with material injury.'' Therefore, in such
cases, and in accordance with 19 CFR 213(e)(1)(ii), the first
administrative review must begin on the publication date of the
ITC's final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of PET Film were made at less than 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 ``Normal Value'' section 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
[[Page 78970]]
respondents, as described in the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above,
and sold in the UAE 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.
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, neither FLEX nor JBF
reported sales to affiliates in the home market.
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 an LOT adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A)
of the Act.
In implementing these principles, we examined information provided
by JBF and FLEX regarding the selling functions involved in their home
market and U.S. sales, including a description of these selling
functions, listed in Attachment 2 (Level of Trade Analysis) of FLEX's
July 23, 2010 submission and Exhibit A-5 of JBF's February 9, 2010
submission. Our analysis revealed that there were not any significant
differences in selling functions between different channels of
distribution or customer type in either the home or U.S. markets.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that FLEX and JBF each made all
home-market sales at one level of trade. Moreover, we preliminarily
determine that all home-market sales by FLEX and JBF were made at the
same level of trade as their U.S. sales. Accordingly, an LOT adjustment
is not warranted.
Likewise, the CEP offset requested by FLEX is not warranted.
Because FLEX's selling functions for the U.S. and home market sales do
not differ and all home-market sales were made at the same level of
trade as its U.S. sales, we have not applied a CEP offset in accordance
with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
Date of Sale
The Department will normally use invoice date, as recorded in the
exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of
business, as the date of sale, but may use a date other than the
invoice date if it better reflects the date on which the material terms
of sale are established. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). For both JBF and FLEX,
we preliminarily determine that no departure from our standard practice
is warranted. Both companies reported invoice date as date of sale, and
the record does not indicate that material terms of sale are
established at a later date or earlier in the sales process. For
certain sales, however, shipment took place a few days earlier than
invoice date. For such sales, we have used shipment date to the
customer as date of sale rather than invoice, consistent with
Department practice that assumes terms of sale are fixed at the time of
shipment.
JBF Margin Calculation
Export Price
The Department based the price of all U.S. sales of subject
merchandise by JBF on EP as defined in section 772(a) of the Act
because the merchandise was sold before importation by the producer or
exporter of the subject merchandise outside the United States to an
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We calculated EP based on
the packed price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, as
appropriate. See section 772(c) of the Act. We made adjustments to
price for billing adjustments, where applicable, and deducted all
movement expenses reported by JBF.
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 NV,
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 their
November 18, 2010 submission, JBF identified certain transactions,
originally reported as home market sales, that it claims it knew were
exported. Where it was possible to identify in the database that JBF
knew that a shipment was destined for a third country market, which in
turn meant that JBF knew that the sale was exported, we removed those
transactions from the home market sales database. In accordance with
section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.404(b), because JBF's
revised 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 find that the home market was
viable for comparison purposes.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act, to initiate a
COP investigation the Department must have ``reasonable grounds'' to
believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product under
consideration for the determination of NV have been made at prices
below the COP of that product. An allegation will be deemed to have
provided reasonable grounds if: (1) A reasonable methodology is used in
the calculation of the COP including the use of the respondent's actual
data, if available; (2) using this methodology, sales are shown to be
made at prices below the COP; and (3) the sales allegedly made at below
cost are representative of a broader range of foreign models which may
be used as a basis for NV. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act and
Notice of Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality
[[Page 78971]]
Steel Products from Brazil, 70 FR 48668, 48670 (August 19, 2005),
unchanged in Notice of Final Results of New Shipper Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality
Steel Products from Brazil, 70 FR 62297 (October 31, 2005). The
Department found that pursuant to 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, the
petitioners, referencing section B of JBF's March 4, 2010 questionnaire
response, provided in their allegation a reasonable basis to believe or
suspect that JBF was selling PET Film at below the COP. See COP
Initiation Memorandum. As a result, the Department is directed under
section 773(b) of the Act to determine whether JBF 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 JBF's cost of materials and fabrication for the
foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general, and
administrative expenses, 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--JBF RAK LLC'' (December 7,
2010) (JBF Cost Memorandum).
The Department's normal practice is to calculate an annual
weighted-average cost for the entire period of investigation or POR.
See, e.g., Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 65 FR 77852 (December 13, 2000) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 18. However, the Department
recognizes that possible distortions may result if our normal annual-
average cost methodology is used during a period of significant cost
changes. The Department determines whether to deviate from our normal
methodology of calculating an annual weighted-average cost by
evaluating two primary factors: (1) whether the change in the cost of
manufacturing recognized by the respondent during the POR is deemed
significant (i.e., greater than 25 percent); and (2) whether the record
evidence indicates that sales during the shorter averaging periods
could be reasonably linked with the COP during the same shorter
averaging periods. See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 75398,
75399 (December 11, 2008) and Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipes From
the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 74 FR 31242 (June 30, 2009). We preliminarily determine that
the record evidence does not satisfy the first criterion and, thus, we
also determine that JBF's quarterly cost data should not be used for
these preliminary results. We calculated the change from the low
quarter to the high quarter of the POR for all significant raw material
inputs and found that there was no significant change in costs for a
majority of the raw materials purchased (i.e., that the change in cost
over the POR did not meet our 25 percent significance threshold). As
there was not a significant change in raw material costs, we determined
that there was no need to depart from our average annual cost
methodology. Based on our analysis of JBF's questionnaire responses and
our findings at the cost verification, we made the following
adjustments to JBF's reported COP.
We reallocated the total cost of non-recyclable film lumps
to all PET film products produced during the POR.
We increased the reported COP to exclude credits related
to depreciation recorded outside of the POR and to include depreciation
for October 2009.
We adjusted the cost of chips transferred from the chips
division to reflect chips division conversion costs as well as raw
material rebates and credits.
We adjusted the reported conversion costs to exclude the
cost of metalizing materials included in manufacturing expenses.
We revised the general and administrative expense ratio to
exclude selling expenses that are either double counted in the U.S. or
home market sales files or properly excluded.
We used the financial expense ratio submitted in JBF's
October 5, 2010 section D response.
See JBF Cost Memorandum and Cost Verification Report.
D. Cost of Production 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.
(We first removed those transactions that the Department was able to
confirm from the information on the record were export sales to third
countries which JBF had reported in its November 18, 2010 submission,
as noted above.) 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) 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.'' We did however
disregard the below cost sales that: (1) Have been made within an
extended period of time (within six months to one year) in substantial
quantities (20 percent or more), as defined by section 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C) of the Act; and (2) were not made at prices which permit recovery
of all costs within a reasonable period of time, as prescribed by
section 773(b)(2(D) of the Act. Accordingly, we determined that JBF had
sales that may be disregarded in the determination of NV because (1) 20
percent or more of a given product was sold as prices less than COP and
(2) based on our comparison of prices to weighted-average COP figured
for the POR, they were made at prices that would not permit recovery of
all costs within a reasonable period of time. 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 these preliminary results.
F. Price-to-Price Comparisons
We calculated NV based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers
in the home market. We used JBF'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)
[[Page 78972]]
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. Specifically, we made COS adjustments
for imputed credit expenses as well as credit insurance expense and
demurrage, which JBF tied to specific U.S. invoices, in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act (other than imputed credit expenses,
JBF reported no home market direct selling expenses). Finally, we added
U.S. packing costs and deducted home market packing costs, in
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, respectively.
FLEX's Margin Calculation
Constructed Export Price
In calculating the antidumping duty margins for FLEX, we used CEP,
as defined in section 772(b) of the Act, because all sales were made
through FLEX America, a company affiliated with FLEX. We made
deductions from CEP for all movement expenses reported by FLEX, as well
as imputed credit expenses, and several direct expenses, including
documentation charges, credit insurance expenses, terminal handling
charges, demurrage charges, and several other fees, like port security
charges, incurred on U.S. sales. In addition, we deducted indirect
selling expenses associated with economic activity in the United States
and imputed inventory carrying costs incurred by FLEX America. See
sections 772(c)(2)(A) and 772(d)(1) of the Act. Finally, pursuant to
section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP profit;
i.e., profit associated with economic activity in the United States.
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 NV,
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 FLEX'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. No COP analysis was
conducted for FLEX because there was no allegation of sales below COP
by the petitioners in this review, nor is there reason to believe or
suspect sales below COP in this review based on a finding of sales
below COP in the investigation.
B. Price-to-Price Comparisons
We calculated NV based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers
in the home market. We made deductions for foreign inland freight
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act, imputed credit expenses,
and credit insurance expenses, and demurrage charges. 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. 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.
Currency Conversions
Pursuant to section 773(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, we made
currency conversions for FLEX's and JBF'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 November 6, 2008,
through October 31, 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Manufacturer/Exporter margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JBF RAK LLC...................................... 4.76
FLEX Middle East FZE............................. 3.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 JBF and FLEX. 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 the respondents reported the entered value for their sales, 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 the UAE 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 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, 4.05 percent.\3\ These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Order, 73 FR at 66597.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 78973]]
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. Unless extended by the Department, 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, unless otherwise extended. See section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
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: December 7, 2010.
Paul Piquado,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-31771 Filed 12-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P