[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 49 (Thursday, March 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14463-14465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05064]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-533-825]
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India:
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2017
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Jindal
Poly Films Limited of India (Jindal) and SRF Limited (SRF), producers
and/or exporters of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip
(PET film) from India, received net countervailable subsidies during
the period of review (POR) January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.
DATES: Applicable March 12, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi Blum, AD/CVD Operations, Office
VII, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0197.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this review on
September 12, 2019.\1\ For a history of events that occurred since the
Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.\2\ On
January 3, 2020, we extended the final results of review by sixty days
until March 10, 2020.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from
India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review; 2017, 84 FR 48105 (September 12, 2019)
(Preliminary Results).
\2\ See Memorandum, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the
Final Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review of
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India;
2017,'' dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice
(Issues and Decision Memorandum).
\3\ See Memorandum, ``Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and
Strip from India: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,'' dated January 3, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on an analysis of the comments received and record
information, we have revised our calculations for Jindal. The final
subsidy rates are listed in the ``Final Results of Administrative
Review'' section below.
[[Page 14464]]
Scope of the Order
For the purposes of the order, the products covered are all gauges
of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet
and strip, 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 of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports
of PET film are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00.90. HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The
written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised by the interested parties in their case and
rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
The issues are identified in the appendix to this notice. The Issues
and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file
electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and
in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Commerce building.
In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum
can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the
Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on the comments received from interested parties, we made
changes to the net subsidy rate calculated for one of the two mandatory
respondents. Specifically, upon analyzing parties' comments, we noted a
ministerial error in the rate calculations for one program. For a
discussion of these issues, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Methodology
Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section
751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each
of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we find that there is a
subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives
rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is
specific.\4\ For a description of the methodology underlying all of
Commerce's conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding
financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding
benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Companies Not Selected for Individual Review
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not directly address the
establishment of rates to be applied to companies not selected for
individual examination where Commerce limits its examination in an
administrative review pursuant to section 777A(e)(2) of the Act.
However, Commerce normally determines the rates for non-selected
companies in reviews in a manner that is consistent with section
705(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the
all-others rate in an investigation.
Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act instructs Commerce, as a general
rule, to calculate an all-others rate equal to the weighted average of
the countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and
producers individually investigated, excluding any zero, de minimis, or
rates based entirely on facts available. In this review, Commerce
calculated weighted average countervailable subsidy rates for Jindal
and SRF that are not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts
otherwise available. Therefore, Commerce calculated the all-others rate
using a weighted average of the countervailable subsidy rates
calculated for Jindal and SRF using each company's publicly-ranged
values for the merchandise under consideration.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ With two respondents under examination, Commerce normally
calculates (A) a weighted-average of the estimated subsidy rates
calculated for the examined respondents; (B) a simple average of the
estimated subsidy rates calculated for the examined respondents; and
(C) a weighted-average of the estimated subsidy rates calculated for
the examined respondents using each company's publicly-ranged U.S.
sale quantities for the merchandise under consideration. Commerce
then compares (B) and (C) to (A) and selects the rate closest to (A)
as the most appropriate rate for all other producers and exporters.
See, e.g., Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Results of Changed-Circumstances
Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663
(September 1, 2010). As complete publicly-ranged sales data was
available, Commerce based the all-others rate on the publicly-ranged
sales data of the mandatory respondents. For a complete analysis of
the data, see the All-Others Rate Calculation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Results of Administrative Review
In accordance with section 777A(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.221(b)(5), we determine the total estimated net countervailable
subsidy rates for the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017
to be:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidy
rate
Manufacturer/exporter (percent
ad
valorem)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jindal Poly Films Limited of India.......................... 10.51
SRF Limited................................................. 7.22
Ester Industries Limited.................................... 9.30
Garware Polyester Ltd....................................... 9.30
Polyplex Corporation Ltd.................................... 9.30
Vacmet India Limited........................................ 9.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for these
final results of review within five days of the date of publication of
this notice in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b).
Assessment and Cash Deposit Requirements
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce intends to issue
appropriate instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15
days after publication of the final results of this review. Commerce
will instruct CBP to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise
produced and/or exported by the companies listed above, entered or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2017 through
December 31, 2017, at the percent rates, as listed above for each of
the respective companies, of the entered value.
Commerce intends also to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of
estimated countervailing duties, in the amounts shown above for each of
the respective companies shown above, on shipments of subject
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For
all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect
cash deposits at the most-recent company-specific or all-others rate
applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Administrative Protective Order
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to
an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which
continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of
proceeding. Timely written
[[Page 14465]]
notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion
to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is
subject to sanction.
Notification to Interested Parties
These final results are issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Dated: March 6, 2020.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix
Issues and Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. List of Issues
III. Background
IV. Changes Since the Preliminary Results and Post-Preliminary
Results
V. Scope of the Order
VI. Period of Revie
VII. Subsidies Valuation Information
VIII. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences
IX. Analysis of Programs
X. Final Results of Review
XI. Analysis of Comments
Comment 1: Whether Commerce properly determined the appropriate
denominator for Jindal Poly Films Limited (Jindal) for all export
subsidies.
Comment 2: Whether Commerce properly relied on facts available
and an adverse inference to find the Section 32 Capital Investment
Deductions of the Income Tax Act, 1961--Subsection 32AC(1A) program
is a countervailable subsidy.
Comment 3: Whether Commerce properly found the State Government
of Maharashtra (SGOM) Package Scheme of Incentives (PSI) 2007--
Industrial Promotion Subsidy (IPS) to be a countervailable subsidy.
Comment 4: Whether Commerce should revise all allocations for
all non-recurring subsidies based on Jindal's revised company-
specific average useful life (AUL).
Comment 5: Whether Commerce should not countervail export
promotion capital
goods scheme (EPCGS) Licenses for Jindal's Global Non-Wovens
(GNL) division for non-subject merchandise.
Comment 6: Whether Commerce should deduct Jindal's application
fees it paid for its EPCGS licenses from the calculated benefit
amounts.
Comment 7: Whether Commerce made a calculation error related to
the services export from India/services from India (SEIS/SFIS)
schemes.
Comment 8: Whether Commerce failed to explain the source for the
interest rate used in the allocation of the status holder incentive
scheme (SHIS).
XII. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2020-05064 Filed 3-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P