Skip to Content


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble


Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.


The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip (PET film) from India for the period of review (POR) January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. We preliminarily determine that Jindal Poly Films Limited of India (Jindal) and SRF Limited (SRF) received countervailable subsidies during the POR. See the “Preliminary Results of Review” section, below. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.


Effective August 3, 2016.

Start Further Info


Elfi Blum, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0197.

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

The Department initiated a review of nine companies in this segment of the proceeding.[1] In response to timely filed withdrawal requests, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to Ester, Garware, MTZ, Polyplex, Uflex Ltd., Vacmet, and Vacmet India Limited, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). The remaining companies subject to the instant review are Jindal and SRF, which the Department has selected as the mandatory respondents.[2]

Scope of the Order

For 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.


The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(l)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine 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.[3] For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and Start Printed Page 51187is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at​enforcement/​frn/​index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Preliminary Results of Review

We preliminarily determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates for the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014 to be:

Manufacturer/exporterSubsidy rate (percent ad valorem)
Jindal Poly Films of India Limited5.10
SRF Limited2.16

Disclosure and Public Comment

The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results.[4] Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs) within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.[5] Rebuttal briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs.[6] Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.[7]

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must do so within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results by submitting a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system.[8] Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, we will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined.[9] Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing. Issues addressed at the hearing will be limited to those raised in the briefs.[10] All briefs and hearing requests must be filed electronically and received successfully in their entirety through ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.

Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after publication of these preliminary results.

Assessment Rates and Cash Deposit Requirement

Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the Department also intends 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.

These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).

Start Signature

Dated: July 27, 2016.

Ronald K. Lorentzen,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

End Signature

Appendix I

List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum

1. Summary

2. Background

3. Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

4. Scope of the Order

5. Subsidies Valuation Information

6. Analysis of Programs

7. Recommendation

End Further Info End Preamble


1.  See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 53106, 53109 (September 2, 2015) (Initiation Notice). The nine companies were Ester Industries Limited (Ester), Garware Polyester Ltd. (Garware), Jindal Poly Films Ltd. of India (Jindal), MTZ Polyesters Ltd. (MTZ), Polyplex Corporation Ltd. (Polyplex), SRF Limited (SRF), Vacmet, Vacmet India Limited and Uflex Ltd. DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc., and SKC, Inc. (collectively Petitioners) requested a review for six companies (Ester, Garware, Polyplex, SRF, Jindal, and Vacmet). Polyplex USA LLC and Flex Films (USA) Inc. (collectively Domestic Interested Parties) requested a review for eight companies (Ester, Garware, Jindal, MTZ, Polyplex, SRF, Uflex Ltd., Vacmet and Vacmet India Limited). In addition, Jindal and SRF self-requested an administrative review.

Back to Citation

2.  See Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Countervailing Duty (CVD) Administrative Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET film) from India; 2014” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

Back to Citation

3.  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.

Back to Citation

5.  See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(l)(ii) and 351.309(d)(l).

Back to Citation

7.  See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

Back to Citation

[FR Doc. 2016-18336 Filed 8-2-16; 8:45 am]