Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 32756-32760 [E5-2877]
Download as PDF
32756
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 107 / Monday, June 6, 2005 / Notices
express mail, or other overnight carrier
as provided in § 766.22(a). Submissions
by the parties must be filed with the
Under Secretary for Export
Administration, Bureau of Industry and
Security, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Room H–3898, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230, within twelve (12) days from
the date of issuance of this
Recommended Decision and Order.
Thereafter, the parties have eight (8)
days from receipt of any response(s) in
which to submit replies.
Within thirty (30) days after receipt of
this Recommended Decision and Order,
the Under Secretary shall issue a written
order, affirming, modifying or vacating
the Recommended Decision and Order.
See § 766.22(c). A copy of the Agency
Regualtions for Review by the Under
Secretary is attached.
Done and dated this 25th day of April 2005
in New York, New York.
Walter J. Brudzinski,
Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 05–10983 Filed 6–3–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–33–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–580–839]
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from
Korea: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Partial Rescission of
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
is conducting an administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on
certain polyester staple fiber from
Korea. The period of review is May 1,
2003, through April 30, 2004. This
review covers imports of certain
polyester staple fiber from one
producer/exporter. We have
preliminarily found that sales of the
subject merchandise have been made
below normal value. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to assess
antidumping duties. Interested parties
are invited to comment on these
preliminary results. We will issue the
final results not later than 120 days from
the date of publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew McAllister or Yasmin Bordas,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
AGENCY:
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:25 Jun 03, 2005
Jkt 205001
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482–1174 and (202)
482–3813, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 25, 2000, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published an
antidumping duty order on certain
polyester staple fiber (‘‘PSF’’) from
Korea. (See 65 FR 33807). On May 3,
2004, the Department published a notice
of ‘‘Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review’’ of this order.
(See 69 FR 24117). On May 28, 2004,
Wellman, Inc.; Arteva Specialties, Inc.
d/b/a KoSa; and DAK Fibers, LLC
(collectively, ‘‘the petitioners’’)1
requested administrative reviews of
Huvis Corporation (‘‘Huvis’’) and
Saehan Industries, Inc. (‘‘Saehan’’). On
May 28, 2004, Huvis and Saehan made
similar requests for administrative
reviews. On June 30, 2004, the
Department published a notice initiating
the review for the aforementioned
companies. (See 69 FR 39409). The
period of review (‘‘POR’’) is May 1,
2003, through April 30, 2004.
On June 30, 2004, we issued
antidumping questionnaires in this
review. On September 27, 2004, Saehan
withdrew its request for review. On
September 28, 2004, the petitioners
withdrew their request for
administrative review of Saehan. See
‘‘Partial Rescission’’ section, below.
As a result of certain below–cost sales
being disregarded in the previous
administrative review, we instructed
Huvis to respond to the cost
questionnaire. We received a
questionnaire response from Huvis on
September 10, 2004.
In October 2004, December 2004, and
February 2005, we issued supplemental
questionnaires to Huvis. We received
responses to these supplemental
questionnaires in November 2004,
January 2005, and March 2005.
Scope of the Order
For the purposes of this order, the
product covered is PSF. PSF is defined
as synthetic staple fibers, not carded,
combed or otherwise processed for
spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3
decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in
diameter. This merchandise is cut to
lengths varying from one inch (25 mm)
to five inches (127 mm). The
1 On March 11, 2005, the Department was
informed that Arteva Specialties, Inc. d/b/a KoSa
had changed its name to Invista S.a.r.l. Presently,
the petitioners are Wellman, Inc.; Invista S.a.r.l.;
and DAK Fibers.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
merchandise subject to this order may
be coated, usually with a silicon or
other finish, or not coated. PSF is
generally used as stuffing in sleeping
bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters,
cushions, pillows, and furniture.
Merchandise of less than 3.3 decitex
(less than 3 denier) currently classifiable
in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at
subheading 5503.20.00.20 is specifically
excluded from this order. Also
specifically excluded from this order are
polyester staple fibers of 10 to 18 denier
that are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches
(fibers used in the manufacture of
carpeting). In addition, low–melt PSF is
excluded from this order. Low–melt PSF
is defined as a bi–component fiber with
an outer sheath that melts at a
significantly lower temperature than its
inner core.
The merchandise subject to this order
is currently classifiable in the HTSUS at
subheadings 5503.20.00.45 and
5503.20.00.65. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise
under order is dispositive.
Partial Rescission
As noted above, Saehan withdrew its
request for review, and the petitioners
also withdrew their request for review
of Saehan. Because these withdrawals
were timely filed and no other party
requested a review of this company,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we
are rescinding this review with respect
to Saehan. We will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to liquidate any entries from this
company during the POR and to assess
antidumping duties at the rate in effect
at the time of entry.
Revocation
The Department ‘‘may revoke, in
whole or in part’’ an antidumping duty
order upon completion of a review
under section 751 of the Tariff Act of
1930 (‘‘the Act’’), as amended. While
Congress has not specified the
procedures that the Department must
follow in revoking an order, the
Department has developed a procedure
for revocation that is described in 19
CFR 351.222. This regulation requires,
inter alia, that a company requesting
revocation must submit the following:
(1) a certification that the company has
sold the subject merchandise at not less
than normal value (‘‘NV’’) in the current
review period and that the company
will not sell at less than NV in the
future; (2) a certification that the
company sold the subject merchandise
in each of the three years forming the
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 107 / Monday, June 6, 2005 / Notices
basis of the request in commercial
quantities; and, (3) an agreement to
reinstatement of the order if the
Department concludes that the
company, subsequent to the revocation,
sold subject merchandise at less than
NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1),
Huvis requested revocation of the
antidumping duty order as it pertains to
Huvis. According to 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2), upon receipt of such a
request, the Department may revoke an
order, in part, if it concludes that (1) the
company in question has sold subject
merchandise at not less than NV for a
period of at least three consecutive
years; (2) the continued application of
the antidumping duty order is not
otherwise necessary to offset dumping;
and (3) the company has agreed to its
immediate reinstatement in the order if
the Department concludes that the
company, subsequent to the revocation,
sold subject merchandise at less than
NV.
We preliminarily find that the request
from Huvis does not meet all of the
criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. With
regard to the criterion of 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2)(i), Huvis received a
weighted average margin of 1.54 percent
in the 2002–2003 Administrative
Review, and thus has not sold subject
merchandise at not less than NV for a
period of three consecutive years. See
Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 69 FR 61341
(October 18, 2004) (‘‘2002–2003 PSF
Final’’), covering the period May 1,
2002, through April 30, 2003. Therefore,
we preliminarily find that Huvis does
not qualify for revocation of the order
on PSF pursuant to 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2).
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether the
respondent’s sales of PSF to the United
States were made at less than NV, we
compared export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as
described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and
‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.
Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the
Act, we compared the EP of individual
U.S. transactions to the weighted–
average NV of the foreign like product,
where there were sales made in the
ordinary course of trade, as discussed in
the ‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’
section, below.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of
the Act, we considered all products
produced and sold by the respondent in
the home market covered by the
description in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:25 Jun 03, 2005
Jkt 205001
section, above, to be foreign like
products for purposes of determining
appropriate product comparisons to
U.S. sales. In accordance with section
773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, in order to
determine whether there was a
sufficient volume of sales in the home
market 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. (For further details, see
the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section, below.)
We compared U.S. sales to monthly
weighted–average prices of
contemporaneous sales made in the
home market. Where there were no
contemporaneous sales of identical
merchandise in the home market, we
compared sales made within the
window period, which extends from
three months prior to the POR until two
months after the POR. Where there were
no sales of identical merchandise in the
home market made in the ordinary
course of trade to compare to U.S. sales,
we compared U.S. sales to sales of the
most similar foreign like product made
in the ordinary course of trade. Where
there were no sales of identical or
similar merchandise made in the
ordinary course of trade in the home
market to compare to U.S. sales, we
compared U.S. sales to constructed
value (‘‘CV’’). In making product
comparisons, consistent with our final
determination in the original
investigation, we matched foreign like
products based on the physical
characteristics reported by the
respondent in the following order: 1)
composition; 2) type; 3) grade; 4) cross
section; 5) finish; and 6) denier (see
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber From the
Republic of Korea, 65 FR 16880, 16881
(March 30, 2000)).
Export Price
For sales to the United States, we
calculated EP, in accordance with
section 772(a) of the Act, because the
merchandise was sold prior to
importation by the exporter or producer
outside the United States to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States, and because constructed export
price methodology was not otherwise
warranted. We calculated EP based on
the FOB, C&F, CIF, EDDP (ex–dock duty
paid) FOB U.S. port, EDDP C&F, or
EDDP CIF price to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. Where
appropriate, we made deductions,
consistent with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act, for the following movement
expenses: inland freight from the plant
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32757
to port of exportation, foreign brokerage
and handling, international freight,
marine insurance, and U.S. customs
duty.
We increased EP, where appropriate,
for duty drawback in accordance with
section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Huvis
provided documentation demonstrating
that it received duty drawback under
Korea’s individual–rate system. In prior
investigations and administrative
reviews, the Department has examined
Korea’s individual–rate system and
found that the government controls in
place generally satisfy the Department’s
requirements for receiving a duty
drawback adjustment (i.e., that 1) the
rebates received were directly linked to
import duties paid on inputs used in the
manufacture of the subject merchandise,
and 2) there were sufficient imports to
account for the rebates received). See,
e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Partial
Termination of Administrative Review:
Circular Welded Non–Alloy Steel Pipe
From the Republic of Korea, 62 FR
55574, 55577 (October 27, 1997). We
examined the documentation submitted
by Huvis in this administrative review
and confirmed that it meets the
Department’s two–prong test for
receiving a duty drawback adjustment.
Accordingly, we are allowing the
reported duty drawback adjustment on
Huvis’ U.S. sales.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
To determine whether there was a
sufficient volume of sales of PSF in the
home market to serve as a viable basis
for calculating NV, we compared the
respondent’s home market sales of the
foreign like product to its volume of
U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a) of the
Act. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)
and (C) of the Act, because the
respondent’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 determined
that the home market was viable for
comparison.
B. Level of Trade
Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act
states that, to the extent practicable, the
Department will calculate NV based on
sales at the same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’)
as the EP. Sales are made at different
LOTs if they are made at different
marketing stages (or their equivalent).
See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial
differences in selling activities are a
necessary, but not sufficient, condition
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
32758
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 107 / Monday, June 6, 2005 / Notices
for determining that there is a difference
in the stages of marketing. Id.; see also
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut–toLength Carbon Steel Plate From South
Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November
19, 1997). In order to determine whether
the comparison sales were at different
stages in the marketing process than the
U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution
system in each market (i.e., the ‘‘chain
of distribution’’),2 including selling
functions,3 class of customer (‘‘customer
category’’), and the level of selling
expenses for each type of sale.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of
the Act, in identifying levels of trade for
EP and comparison market sales (i.e.,
NV based on either home market or
third country prices)4, we consider the
starting prices before any adjustments.
See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United
States, et. al., 243 F.3d 1301, 1314–1315
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming this
methodology).
When the Department is unable to
match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign
like product in the comparison market
at the same LOT as the EP, the
Department may compare the U.S. sale
to sales at a different LOT in the
comparison market. In comparing EP
sales at a different LOT in the
comparison market, where available
data show that the difference in LOT
affects price comparability, we make an
LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
Huvis reported that it made direct
sales to distributors and end users in
both the home market and in the United
States. Huvis has reported a single
channel of distribution and a single
level of trade in each market, and has
not requested an LOT adjustment. We
examined the information reported by
Huvis regarding its marketing process
for making the reported home market
and U.S. sales, including the type and
level of selling activities performed, and
customer categories. Specifically, we
2 The marketing process in the United States and
comparison markets begins with the producer and
extends to the sale to the final user or customer.
The chain of distribution between the two may have
many or few links, and the respondent’s sales occur
somewhere along this chain. In performing this
evaluation, we considered the narrative responses
of the respondent to properly determine where in
the chain of distribution the sale appears to occur.
3 Selling functions associated with a particular
chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s)
of trade in a particular market. For purposes of
these preliminary results, we have organized the
common selling functions into four major
categories: sales process and marketing support,
freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing,
and quality assurance/warranty services.
4 Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV
LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we
derive selling expenses, G&A expenses, and profit
for CV, where possible.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:25 Jun 03, 2005
Jkt 205001
considered the extent to which sales
process, freight services, warehouse/
inventory maintenance, and warranty
services varied with respect to the
different customer categories (i.e.,
distributors and end users) within each
market and across the markets. Based on
our analyses, we found a single level of
trade in the United States, and a single,
identical level of trade in the home
market. Thus, it was unnecessary to
make a LOT adjustment for Huvis in
comparing EP and home market prices.
C. Sales to Affiliated Customers
Huvis made sales in the home market
to an affiliated customer. To test
whether these sales were made at arm’s
length, we compared the starting prices
of sales to the affiliated customer to
those of unaffiliated customers, net of
all movement charges, direct and
indirect selling expenses, discounts, and
packing. Where the price to the
affiliated party was, on average, within
a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price
of the same or comparable merchandise
to the unaffiliated parties, we
determined that the sales made to the
affiliated party were at arm’s length. See
Modification Concerning Affiliated
Party Sales in the Comparison Market,
67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). In
accordance with the Department’s
practice, we only included in our
margin analysis sales to an affiliated
party that were made at arm’s length.
D. Cost of Production Analysis
As discussed in the ‘‘Background’’
section above, there were reasonable
grounds to believe or suspect that the
respondent made sales of the subject
merchandise in its comparison market
at prices below the cost of production
(‘‘COP’’) within the meaning of section
773(b) of the Act.
1. Calculation of COP
We calculated the COP on a product–
specific basis, based on the sum of the
respondent’s costs of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product,
plus amounts for selling, general and
administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses,
including interest expenses, and the
costs of all expenses incidental to
placing the foreign like product packed
and in a condition ready for shipment,
in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of
the Act.
We relied on COP information
submitted in Huvis’ cost questionnaire
responses, except for the following
adjustments. We adjusted Huvis’
reported cost of manufacturing to
account for purchases of modified
terephthalic acid (‘‘MTA’’) and qualified
terephthalic acid (‘‘QTA’’) from
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
affiliated parties at non–arm’s–length
prices. We preliminarily find that MTA
and QTA are interchangeable for the
following reasons: 1) the production
processes of MTA and QTA are
essentially the same; 2) Huvis has stated
it may, in certain instances, use a type
of terephtalic acid (‘‘TPA’’) different
from the one normally used in
production of a particular chip without
significant changes to the end product;
and 3) Huvis’ decision to use MTA or
QTA in the production process is driven
by plant proximity to the chemical
supplier. Huvis did not provide market
price information for QTA.5 See
Memorandum from Team to the File,
‘‘Preliminary Results Calculation
Memorandum - Huvis Corporation,’’
dated May 31, 2005 (‘‘Huvis Calculation
Memorandum’’), which is on file in the
Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in room
B–099 of the main Department building.
We also revised the sales, general, and
administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) ratios for
Huvis’ affiliated suppliers. Consistent
with the Department’s normal practice,
we included expenses that Huvis had
improperly excluded from its
calculation of the numerator of the
SG&A ratios. See Huvis Calculation
Memorandum.
In its net interest expense calculation,
Huvis offset its interest expenses. For
the preliminary results, we have
excluded this offset because it is not
related to interest income incurred on
short–term investments of working
capital. See Huvis Calculation
Memorandum.
2. Test of Home Market Prices
On a product–specific basis, we
compared the adjusted weighted–
average COP figures for the POR to the
home market sales of the foreign like
product, as required under section
773(b) of the Act, to determine whether
these sales were made at prices below
the COP. The prices were exclusive of
any applicable movement charges and
indirect selling expenses. In
determining whether to disregard home
market sales made at prices less than
5 The petitioners submitted a market research
study with suggested market prices for TPA. See
Submission from Petitioners to the Department,
‘‘Market Research Study,’’ dated December 23,
2004. In this instance, the Department preliminarily
finds that the information in the petitioners’ market
study is not supported by adequate sales
documentation. Specifically, the price quotes do
not distinguish between the different types of TPA
used by Huvis in its production of PSF nor are they
associated with actual sales transactions. In
contrast, Huvis was able to support its reported
market prices of MTA with invoices from the
supplier. Therefore, for the preliminary results, we
are relying on Huvis’ reported market prices to
calculate MTA and QTA. See Huvis Calculation
Memorandum.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 107 / Monday, June 6, 2005 / Notices
their COP, we examined, in accordance
with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the
Act, whether such sales were made (1)
within an extended period of time in
substantial quantities, and (2) at prices
which permitted the recovery of all
costs within a reasonable period of time.
3. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(1), where
less than 20 percent of the respondent’s
sales of a given product are at prices less
than the COP, we do not disregard any
below–cost sales of that product,
because we determine that in such
instances the below–cost sales were not
made in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where
20 percent or more of the respondent’s
sales of a given product are at prices less
than the COP, we determine that the
below–cost sales represent ‘‘substantial
quantities’’ within an extended period
of time, in accordance with section
773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases,
we also determine whether such sales
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)(1)(B) of
the Act.
We found that, for certain specific
products, more than 20 percent of the
respondent’s home market sales were at
prices less than the COP and, thus, the
below–cost sales were made within an
extended period of time in substantial
quantities. In addition, these sales were
made at prices that did not permit the
recovery of costs within a reasonable
period of time. Therefore, we excluded
these sales and used the remaining sales
of the same product, as the basis for
determining NV, in accordance with
section 773(b)(1).
E. Calculation of Normal Value Based
on Home Market Prices
We calculated NV based on the price
to unaffiliated customers, and to an
affiliated customer to which sales were
made at arm’s length. We made
adjustments for differences in packing
in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A)
and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. We also
made adjustments, where appropriate,
consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii)
of the Act, for inland freight from the
plant to the customer. In addition, we
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, where
appropriate, by deducting direct selling
expenses incurred on home market sales
(i.e., credit expenses and bank charges)
and adding U.S. direct selling expenses
(i.e., credit expenses and bank charges).
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:25 Jun 03, 2005
Jkt 205001
For some of its home market sales,
Huvis reported that payments were
made within an open account system,
i.e., periodic payments were made on
outstanding account balances. For these
open account sales, Huvis calculated the
payment date using an average payment
period for each customer. For two of
Huvis’ home market customers, we have
adjusted the credit period for open
account sales. We also recalculated
credit expenses for home market sales
that were incurred in U.S. dollars using
Huvis’ reported U.S. interest rate. See
Huvis Calculation Memorandum.
Preliminary Results of the Review
We find that the following dumping
margins exist for the period May 1,
2003, through April 30, 2004:
Weighted–average
margin percentage
Exporter/manufacturer
Huvis Corporation .........
5.87
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of
this notice. Any hearing, if requested,
will be held 42 days after the
publication of this notice, or the first
workday thereafter. Issues raised in the
hearing will be limited to those raised
in the case and rebuttal briefs. Interested
parties may 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, may be filed not later than 35
days after the date of publication of this
notice. Parties who submit case briefs or
rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are
requested to submit with each argument
(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a
brief summary of the argument with an
electronic version included.
The Department will issue the final
results of this administrative review,
including the results of its analysis of
issues raised in any such written briefs
or hearing, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results.
Assessment Rates and Cash Deposit
Requirements
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
Department calculates an assessment
rate for each importer or customer of the
subject merchandise. The Department
will issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP within 15
days of publication of the final results
of this review. Upon issuance of the
final results of this administrative
review, if any importer- or customer–
specific assessment rates calculated in
the final results are above de minimis
(i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the
Department will instruct CBP to assess
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32759
antidumping duties on appropriate
entries by applying the assessment rate
to the entered quantity of the
merchandise. For assessment purposes,
we calculated importer- or customer–
specific assessment rates for the subject
merchandise by aggregating the
dumping duties due for all U.S. sales to
each importer or customer and dividing
the amount by the total entered quantity
of the sales to that importer or customer.
The following deposit requirements
will be effective upon completion of the
final results of this administrative
review for all shipments of PSF from
Korea entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
the publication date of the final results
of this administrative review, as
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1) the cash deposit rate for the
reviewed company will be the rate
established in the final results of this
administrative review (except no cash
deposit will be required if its weighted–
average margin is de minimis, i.e., less
than 0.5 percent); (2) for merchandise
exported by manufacturers or exporters
not covered in this review but covered
in the original less–than-fair–value
investigation or a previous review, the
cash deposit rate will continue to be the
most recent rate published in the final
determination or final results for which
the manufacturer or exporter received
an individual rate; (3) if the exporter is
not a firm covered in this review, the
previous review, or the original
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 reviews,
the cash deposit rate will be 7.91
percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established
in Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from
the Republic of Korea: Notice of
Amended Final Determination and
Amended Order Pursuant to Final Court
Decision, 68 FR 74552 (December 24,
2003).
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
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
32760
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 107 / Monday, June 6, 2005 / Notices
We are issuing and publishing these
results in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 31, 2005.
Susan H. Kuhbach,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–2877 Filed 6–3–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 053105E]
New England Fishery Management
Council; Public Meeting
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The New England Fishery
Management Council (Council) will
hold a three-day Council meeting on
June 21–23, 2005, to consider actions
affecting New England fisheries in the
exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
DATES: The meeting will be held on
Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday,
June 21–23, 2005 beginning at 8 a.m.
each day.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Eastland Park Hotel, 157 High
Street, Portland, ME 04101; telephone:
(207) 775–5411.
Council address: to the New England
Fishery Management Council, 50 Water
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
J. Howard, Executive Director, New
England Fishery Management Council;
(978) 465–0492.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Following introductions, the Council
will receive reports from the Council
Chairman and Executive Director, the
NMFS Regional Administrator,
Northeast Fisheries Science Center and
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council liaisons, NOAA General
Counsel and representatives of the U.S.
Coast Guard, NMFS Enforcement and
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission. There also will be an
update on the New England Fleet
Visioning Project. During the morning
session, the Council will receive a
briefing on a series of advisory panel
meetings concerning development of an
New England Fishery Management
Council (NEFMC) Conservation and
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:25 Jun 03, 2005
Jkt 205001
Management Policy. The policy, which
the Council will consider and could
approve, concerns issues related to
capacity, use of input/output controls
and resource allocation issues. The
Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization
Committee will provide
recommendations for Council approval
concerning positions on changes to the
Act. The rest of the day will be spent on
proposed Amendment 1 to the Herring
Fishery Management Plan (FMP).
Members will review and consider
management alternatives to be included
in the associated Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement, select
preferred alternatives, and approve the
document for public hearings.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
During the Wednesday morning
session, the Council will review issues
identified at recent port meetings and
related to fishery regulations and safety
at sea. Follow up actions may be
recommended. An open public
comment period will be available for
items not listed on the agenda, followed
by a report from the chairman of the
Transboundary Management Guidance
Committee. That report will include a
review of discussions about an
alternative to the current harvest
strategy for haddock. There also will be
a report from the Scientific and
Statistical Committee about an
alternative model to assess groundfish
stocks. The Council will then take
initial action on Framework Adjustment
42 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP
by formally identifying what measures
will be analyzed and further considered
in the adjustment. NOAA Fisheries
scientists will report to the Council on
invasive colonial tunicates now found
on Georges Bank. At the end of the day
final action on proposed Framework
Adjustment 1 to the Spiny Dogfish FMP
will be considered. Measures will
address a modification to the plan that
would allow multi-year specifications to
be set for the fishery. At the end of the
day the Council will discuss and
possibly approve a motion to give sole
management authority for spiny dogfish
to the Mid-Atlantic Council and assume
sole management authority for
monkfish.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
The morning session will begin with
a report from the Council’s Research
Steering Committee concerning their
review of several cooperative research
project final reports. There will be
summary of the most recent activities
currently underway and associated with
development of essential fish habitat
(EFH) Omnibus Amendment 2 as well
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
as a review of the outcome of the
NEFMC’s Marine Protected Areas
Education and Outreach Workshops.
The last item on the agenda will address
Framework Adjustment 18 to the Sea
Scallop Fishery Management Plan. This
will include a report on 2005
assessment updates and forecasts. There
will be consideration of a
recommendation for emergency action
to end possible overfishing of the
scallop resource and approval of
comments on proposed sea turtle
conservation measures.
Although other non-emergency issues
not contained in this agenda may come
before this Council for discussion, those
issues may not be the subjects of formal
action during this meeting. Council
action will be restricted to those issues
specifically listed in this notice and any
issues arising after publication of this
notice that require emergency action
under section 305(c) of the MagnusonStevens Act, provided that the public
has been notified of the Council’s intent
to take final action to address the
emergency.
Special Accommodations
This meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul
J. Howard (see ADDRESSES) at least 5
days prior to the meeting date.
Dated: May 31, 2005.
Emily Menashes,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service
[FR Doc. E5–2865 Filed 6–3–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
[Docket No. 2005–P–063]
Grant of Interim Extension of the Term
of U.S. Patent No. 4,591,585;
Atamestane
United States Patent and
Trademark Office.
ACTION: Notice of interim patent term
extension.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and
Trademark Office has issued a
certificate under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for
a second one-year interim extension of
the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,591,585.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karin Ferriter by telephone at (571)
272–7744; by mail marked to her
attention and addressed to the
Commissioner for Patents, Mail Stop
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 107 (Monday, June 6, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32756-32760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-2877]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-839]
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber
from Korea. The period of review is May 1, 2003, through April 30,
2004. This review covers imports of certain polyester staple fiber from
one producer/exporter. We have preliminarily found that sales of the
subject merchandise have been made below normal value. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from the date
of publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAllister or Yasmin Bordas,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1174
and (202) 482-3813, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 25, 2000, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
published an antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber
(``PSF'') from Korea. (See 65 FR 33807). On May 3, 2004, the Department
published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review''
of this order. (See 69 FR 24117). On May 28, 2004, Wellman, Inc.;
Arteva Specialties, Inc. d/b/a KoSa; and DAK Fibers, LLC (collectively,
``the petitioners'')\1\ requested administrative reviews of Huvis
Corporation (``Huvis'') and Saehan Industries, Inc. (``Saehan''). On
May 28, 2004, Huvis and Saehan made similar requests for administrative
reviews. On June 30, 2004, the Department published a notice initiating
the review for the aforementioned companies. (See 69 FR 39409). The
period of review (``POR'') is May 1, 2003, through April 30, 2004.
On June 30, 2004, we issued antidumping questionnaires in this
review. On September 27, 2004, Saehan withdrew its request for review.
On September 28, 2004, the petitioners withdrew their request for
administrative review of Saehan. See ``Partial Rescission'' section,
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On March 11, 2005, the Department was informed that Arteva
Specialties, Inc. d/b/a KoSa had changed its name to Invista
S.a.r.l. Presently, the petitioners are Wellman, Inc.; Invista
S.a.r.l.; and DAK Fibers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of certain below-cost sales being disregarded in the
previous administrative review, we instructed Huvis to respond to the
cost questionnaire. We received a questionnaire response from Huvis on
September 10, 2004.
In October 2004, December 2004, and February 2005, we issued
supplemental questionnaires to Huvis. We received responses to these
supplemental questionnaires in November 2004, January 2005, and March
2005.
Scope of the Order
For the purposes of this order, the product covered is PSF. PSF is
defined as synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise
processed for spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier,
inclusive) or more in diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths
varying from one inch (25 mm) to five inches (127 mm). The merchandise
subject to this order may be coated, usually with a silicon or other
finish, or not coated. PSF is generally used as stuffing in sleeping
bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and
furniture. Merchandise of less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier)
currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTSUS'') at subheading 5503.20.00.20 is specifically excluded
from this order. Also specifically excluded from this order are
polyester staple fibers of 10 to 18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6
to 8 inches (fibers used in the manufacture of carpeting). In addition,
low-melt PSF is excluded from this order. Low-melt PSF is defined as a
bi-component fiber with an outer sheath that melts at a significantly
lower temperature than its inner core.
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in
the HTSUS at subheadings 5503.20.00.45 and 5503.20.00.65. Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the merchandise under order is dispositive.
Partial Rescission
As noted above, Saehan withdrew its request for review, and the
petitioners also withdrew their request for review of Saehan. Because
these withdrawals were timely filed and no other party requested a
review of this company, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are
rescinding this review with respect to Saehan. We will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to liquidate any entries from
this company during the POR and to assess antidumping duties at the
rate in effect at the time of entry.
Revocation
The Department ``may revoke, in whole or in part'' an antidumping
duty order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (``the Act''), as amended. While Congress has not specified
the procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order,
the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is
described in 19 CFR 351.222. This regulation requires, inter alia, that
a company requesting revocation must submit the following: (1) a
certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not
less than normal value (``NV'') in the current review period and that
the company will not sell at less than NV in the future; (2) a
certification that the company sold the subject merchandise in each of
the three years forming the
[[Page 32757]]
basis of the request in commercial quantities; and, (3) an agreement to
reinstatement of the order if the Department concludes that the
company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less
than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), Huvis requested revocation of the
antidumping duty order as it pertains to Huvis. According to 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2), upon receipt of such a request, the Department may
revoke an order, in part, if it concludes that (1) the company in
question has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period
of at least three consecutive years; (2) the continued application of
the antidumping duty order is not otherwise necessary to offset
dumping; and (3) the company has agreed to its immediate reinstatement
in the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent
to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV.
We preliminarily find that the request from Huvis does not meet all
of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. With regard to the criterion of
19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i), Huvis received a weighted average margin of
1.54 percent in the 2002-2003 Administrative Review, and thus has not
sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period of three
consecutive years. See Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 61341 (October 18,
2004) (``2002-2003 PSF Final''), covering the period May 1, 2002,
through April 30, 2003. Therefore, we preliminarily find that Huvis
does not qualify for revocation of the order on PSF pursuant to 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2).
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether the respondent's sales of PSF to the United
States were made at less than NV, we compared export price (``EP'') to
NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections
of this notice.
Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EP of
individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign
like product, where there were sales made in the ordinary course of
trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section,
below.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
products produced and sold by the respondent in the home market covered
by the description in the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above, to be
foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product
comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii)
of the Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume
of sales in the home market 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. (For further details, see the ``Normal Value'' section,
below.)
We compared U.S. sales to monthly weighted-average prices of
contemporaneous sales made in the home market. Where there were no
contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise in the home market, we
compared sales made within the window period, which extends from three
months prior to the POR until two months after the POR. Where there
were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the
ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S.
sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the
ordinary course of trade. Where there were no sales of identical or
similar merchandise made in the ordinary course of trade in the home
market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to constructed
value (``CV''). In making product comparisons, consistent with our
final determination in the original investigation, we matched foreign
like products based on the physical characteristics reported by the
respondent in the following order: 1) composition; 2) type; 3) grade;
4) cross section; 5) finish; and 6) denier (see Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester
Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea, 65 FR 16880, 16881 (March 30,
2000)).
Export Price
For sales to the United States, we calculated EP, in accordance
with section 772(a) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold prior
to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because
constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We
calculated EP based on the FOB, C&F, CIF, EDDP (ex-dock duty paid) FOB
U.S. port, EDDP C&F, or EDDP CIF price to unaffiliated purchasers in
the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions, consistent
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, for the following movement
expenses: inland freight from the plant to port of exportation, foreign
brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, and
U.S. customs duty.
We increased EP, where appropriate, for duty drawback in accordance
with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Huvis provided documentation
demonstrating that it received duty drawback under Korea's individual-
rate system. In prior investigations and administrative reviews, the
Department has examined Korea's individual-rate system and found that
the government controls in place generally satisfy the Department's
requirements for receiving a duty drawback adjustment (i.e., that 1)
the rebates received were directly linked to import duties paid on
inputs used in the manufacture of the subject merchandise, and 2) there
were sufficient imports to account for the rebates received). See,
e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Partial Termination of Administrative Review: Circular Welded Non-Alloy
Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea, 62 FR 55574, 55577 (October 27,
1997). We examined the documentation submitted by Huvis in this
administrative review and confirmed that it meets the Department's two-
prong test for receiving a duty drawback adjustment. Accordingly, we
are allowing the reported duty drawback adjustment on Huvis' U.S.
sales.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of PSF
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we
compared the respondent's home market sales of the foreign like product
to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance
with section 773(a) of the Act. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and
(C) of the Act, because the respondent'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
determined that the home market was viable for comparison.
B. Level of Trade
Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the
same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP. Sales are made at different
LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition
[[Page 32758]]
for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing.
Id.; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62
FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the
comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than
the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market
(i.e., the ``chain of distribution''),\2\ including selling
functions,\3\ class of customer (``customer category''), and the level
of selling expenses for each type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The marketing process in the United States and comparison
markets begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the
final user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two
may have many or few links, and the respondent's sales occur
somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we
considered the narrative responses of the respondent to properly
determine where in the chain of distribution the sale appears to
occur.
\3\ Selling functions associated with a particular chain of
distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a
particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we
have organized the common selling functions into four major
categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and
delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying
levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on
either home market or third country prices)\4\, we consider the
starting prices before any adjustments. See Micron Technology, Inc. v.
United States, et. al., 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(affirming this methodology).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A
expenses, and profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the
foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the
EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different
LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales at a different LOT
in the comparison market, where available data show that the difference
in LOT affects price comparability, we make an LOT adjustment under
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
Huvis reported that it made direct sales to distributors and end
users in both the home market and in the United States. Huvis has
reported a single channel of distribution and a single level of trade
in each market, and has not requested an LOT adjustment. We examined
the information reported by Huvis regarding its marketing process for
making the reported home market and U.S. sales, including the type and
level of selling activities performed, and customer categories.
Specifically, we considered the extent to which sales process, freight
services, warehouse/inventory maintenance, and warranty services varied
with respect to the different customer categories (i.e., distributors
and end users) within each market and across the markets. Based on our
analyses, we found a single level of trade in the United States, and a
single, identical level of trade in the home market. Thus, it was
unnecessary to make a LOT adjustment for Huvis in comparing EP and home
market prices.
C. Sales to Affiliated Customers
Huvis made sales in the home market to an affiliated customer. To
test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the
starting prices of sales to the affiliated customer to those of
unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct and
indirect selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Where the price to
the affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102
percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise to the
unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the
affiliated party were at arm's length. See Modification Concerning
Affiliated Party Sales in the Comparison Market, 67 FR 69186 (November
15, 2002). In accordance with the Department's practice, we only
included in our margin analysis sales to an affiliated party that were
made at arm's length.
D. Cost of Production Analysis
As discussed in the ``Background'' section above, there were
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that the respondent made sales
of the subject merchandise in its comparison market at prices below the
cost of production (``COP'') within the meaning of section 773(b) of
the Act.
1. Calculation of COP
We calculated the COP on a product-specific basis, based on the sum
of the respondent's costs of materials and fabrication for the foreign
like product, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative
(``SG&A'') expenses, including interest expenses, and the costs of all
expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product packed and in a
condition ready for shipment, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of
the Act.
We relied on COP information submitted in Huvis' cost questionnaire
responses, except for the following adjustments. We adjusted Huvis'
reported cost of manufacturing to account for purchases of modified
terephthalic acid (``MTA'') and qualified terephthalic acid (``QTA'')
from affiliated parties at non-arm's-length prices. We preliminarily
find that MTA and QTA are interchangeable for the following reasons: 1)
the production processes of MTA and QTA are essentially the same; 2)
Huvis has stated it may, in certain instances, use a type of
terephtalic acid (``TPA'') different from the one normally used in
production of a particular chip without significant changes to the end
product; and 3) Huvis' decision to use MTA or QTA in the production
process is driven by plant proximity to the chemical supplier. Huvis
did not provide market price information for QTA.\5\ See Memorandum
from Team to the File, ``Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum -
Huvis Corporation,'' dated May 31, 2005 (``Huvis Calculation
Memorandum''), which is on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU'')
in room B-099 of the main Department building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The petitioners submitted a market research study with
suggested market prices for TPA. See Submission from Petitioners to
the Department, ``Market Research Study,'' dated December 23, 2004.
In this instance, the Department preliminarily finds that the
information in the petitioners' market study is not supported by
adequate sales documentation. Specifically, the price quotes do not
distinguish between the different types of TPA used by Huvis in its
production of PSF nor are they associated with actual sales
transactions. In contrast, Huvis was able to support its reported
market prices of MTA with invoices from the supplier. Therefore, for
the preliminary results, we are relying on Huvis' reported market
prices to calculate MTA and QTA. See Huvis Calculation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also revised the sales, general, and administrative (``SG&A'')
ratios for Huvis' affiliated suppliers. Consistent with the
Department's normal practice, we included expenses that Huvis had
improperly excluded from its calculation of the numerator of the SG&A
ratios. See Huvis Calculation Memorandum.
In its net interest expense calculation, Huvis offset its interest
expenses. For the preliminary results, we have excluded this offset
because it is not related to interest income incurred on short-term
investments of working capital. See Huvis Calculation Memorandum.
2. Test of Home Market Prices
On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP figures for the POR to the home market sales of the foreign
like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine
whether these sales were made at prices below the COP. The prices were
exclusive of any applicable movement charges and indirect selling
expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at
prices less than
[[Page 32759]]
their COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B) of the Act, whether such sales were made (1) within an extended
period of time in substantial quantities, and (2) at prices which
permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.
3. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(1), where less than 20 percent of the
respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP,
we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because we
determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the
respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP,
we determine that the below-cost sales represent ``substantial
quantities'' within an extended period of time, in accordance with
section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determine
whether such sales 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)(1)(B) of the Act.
We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent
of the respondent's home market sales were at prices less than the COP
and, thus, the below-cost sales were made within an extended period of
time in substantial quantities. In addition, these sales were made at
prices that did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable
period of time. Therefore, we excluded these sales and used the
remaining sales of the same product, as the basis for determining NV,
in accordance with section 773(b)(1).
E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices
We calculated NV based on the price to unaffiliated customers, and
to an affiliated customer to which sales were made at arm's length. We
made adjustments for differences in packing in accordance with sections
773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. We also made adjustments,
where appropriate, consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act,
for inland freight from the plant to the customer. In addition, we 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, where appropriate, by deducting
direct selling expenses incurred on home market sales (i.e., credit
expenses and bank charges) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses
(i.e., credit expenses and bank charges).
For some of its home market sales, Huvis reported that payments
were made within an open account system, i.e., periodic payments were
made on outstanding account balances. For these open account sales,
Huvis calculated the payment date using an average payment period for
each customer. For two of Huvis' home market customers, we have
adjusted the credit period for open account sales. We also recalculated
credit expenses for home market sales that were incurred in U.S.
dollars using Huvis' reported U.S. interest rate. See Huvis Calculation
Memorandum.
Preliminary Results of the Review
We find that the following dumping margins exist for the period May
1, 2003, through April 30, 2004:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Exporter/manufacturer margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huvis Corporation................................... 5.87
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 42
days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday
thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those
raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Interested parties may 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, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of
publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal
briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument
(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument
with an electronic version included.
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any
such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results.
Assessment Rates and Cash Deposit Requirements
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an
assessment rate for each importer or customer of the subject
merchandise. The Department will issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final
results of this review. Upon issuance of the final results of this
administrative review, if any importer- or customer-specific assessment
rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis (i.e., at or
above 0.5 percent), the Department will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment
rate to the entered quantity of the merchandise. For assessment
purposes, we calculated importer- or customer-specific assessment rates
for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping duties due for
all U.S. sales to each importer or customer and dividing the amount by
the total entered quantity of the sales to that importer or customer.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of PSF from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of
this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the
Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the
rate established in the final results of this administrative review
(except no cash deposit will be required if its weighted-average margin
is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (2) for merchandise
exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but
covered in the original less-than-fair-value investigation or a
previous review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the most
recent rate published in the final determination or final results for
which the manufacturer or exporter received an individual rate; (3) if
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, the previous review,
or the original 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
reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 7.91 percent, the ``all others''
rate established in Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of
Korea: Notice of Amended Final Determination and Amended Order Pursuant
to Final Court Decision, 68 FR 74552 (December 24, 2003).
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 Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
[[Page 32760]]
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 31, 2005.
Susan H. Kuhbach,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-2877 Filed 6-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S