Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea, 73435-73437 [05-23924]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 237 / Monday, December 12, 2005 / Notices
Duferco’s CBP Form 7501 included as
an attachment.
Pursuant to § 351.213(d)(3) of the
Department’s regulations, the
Department will rescind an
administrative review if it concludes
that during the POR there were no
entries, exports, or sales of the subject
merchandise, as the case may be. In this
case, the Department has determined to
conduct an administrative review of
entries during the POR. Because record
evidence demonstrates that no such
entries occurred, pursuant to section
351.213(d)(3), we intend to rescind the
2004–2005 administrative review.
Public Comment
17:51 Dec 09, 2005
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–580–839]
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the
Republic of Korea
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 6, 2005, the
Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on certain polyester staple fiber from the
Republic of Korea. We gave interested
parties an opportunity to comment on
the preliminary results. Based on our
analysis of the comments received and
an examination of our calculations, we
have made certain changes for the final
results. The final weighted-average
dumping margin for Huvis Corporation
is listed below in the ‘‘Final Results of
the Review’’ section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 12, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Yasmin Bordas or Andrew McAllister,
Office 1, AD/CVD Operations, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3813 or (202) 482–
1174, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
An interested party may request a
hearing within 20 days of publication of
this notice. Any hearing, if requested,
will be held 34 days after the date of
publication of this notice, or the first
working day thereafter. Interested
parties may submit case briefs not later
than 20 days after the date of
publication of this notice. Rebuttal
briefs, which must be limited to issues
raised in such briefs, must be filed not
later than 7 days from the case brief
after the date of publication of this
notice. Parties who submit arguments
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. Further, parties
submitting written comments should
provide the Department with an
additional copy of the public version of
any such comments on diskette. We will
issue our final decision concerning the
conduct of the review no later than 120
days from the date of publication of this
notice.
Additionally, if the Department makes
a final determination to rescind the
2004–2005 administrative review, the
cash-deposit rate will remain at 29.41
percent for Duferco and all other
producers/exporters of subject
merchandise from France. See Certain
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products,
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant
Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From
France; Notice of Final Court Decision
and Amended Final Determinations, 61
FR 51274 (October 1, 1996).
This notice is published in
accordance with section 777(i) of the
Act and section 351.213(d)(4) of the
Department’s regulations.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Dated: December 6, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–7233 Filed 12–9–05; 8:45 am]
Jkt 208001
Background
On June 6, 2005, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
published Certain Polyester Staple Fiber
from Korea: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Partial Rescission of
Review, 70 FR 32756 (June 6, 2005)
(‘‘Preliminary Results’’) in the Federal
Register.
We invited parties to comment on the
preliminary results of the review. On
July 6, 2005, Wellman, Inc.; Arteva
Specialties, Inc. d/b/a KoSa; and DAK
Fibers, LLC (collectively, ‘‘the
petitioners’’), and the respondent,1
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73435
Huvis Corporation (‘‘Huvis’’), filed case
briefs. On July 11, 2005, the petitioners
and Huvis filed rebuttal briefs.
On September 29, 2005, we extended
the time limit for the final results of this
administrative review, pursuant to
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the
Republic of Korea: Extension of Time
Limit for the Final Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 58186 (October 5, 2005).
Accordingly, the final results of this
administrative review are scheduled for
completion by December 5, 2005.
Scope of the Order
For the purposes of this order, the
product covered is certain polyester
staple fiber (‘‘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
under 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.
Period of Review
The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is May
1, 2003, through April 30, 2004.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this review
the petitioners are Wellman, Inc.; Invista S.a.r.l.;
and DAK Fibers.
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
73436
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 237 / Monday, December 12, 2005 / Notices
are addressed in the December 5, 2005,
Issues and Decision Memorandum for
the Fourth Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic
of Korea (‘‘Decision Memorandum’’),
which is hereby adopted by this notice.
Attached to this notice as an appendix
is a list of the issues which parties have
raised and to which we have responded
in the Decision Memorandum. Parties
can find a complete discussion of all
issues raised in this review and the
corresponding recommendations in this
public memorandum, which is on file in
the Department’s Central Records Unit,
Room B–099 of the main Department
building (‘‘CRU’’). In addition, a
complete version of the Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly
on the Web at www.ia.ita.doc.gov. The
paper copy and electronic version of the
Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
Revocation
The Department ‘‘may revoke, in
whole or in part’’ an antidumping duty
order upon completion of a review
under section 751(d) the Act. 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
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Dec 09, 2005
Jkt 208001
company, subsequent to the revocation,
sold subject merchandise at less than
NV.
We find that the request from Huvis
does not meet all of the criteria under
19 CFR 351.222. See Certain Polyester
Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review, 70 FR 32756,
32757 (June 6, 2005) (‘‘Preliminary
Results’’). 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 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 sales of PSF
from Korea to the United States were
made at less than normal value, we
compared export price (‘‘EP’’) to the NV.
We calculated EP, NV, constructed
value (‘‘CV’’), and the cost of production
(‘‘COP’’), based on the same
methodologies used in the Preliminary
Results, with the following exceptions:
• We have adjusted Huvis’ general
and administrative expense ratio.
See Memorandum from Team,
through Julie H. Santoboni, to the
File, ‘‘Final Results Calculation
Memorandum for Huvis
Corporation,’’ dated December 5,
2005 (‘‘Huvis Calculation
Memorandum’’).
• For Huvis’ affiliated suppliers, we
have adjusted the sales, general and
administrative expense ratios. See
Huvis Calculation Memorandum.
See also Decision Memorandum, at
Comment 4.
Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of
the Act, where less than 20 percent of
sales of a given product were at prices
less than the COP, we did not disregard
any below-cost sales of that product
because we determined that the belowcost sales were not made in ‘‘substantial
quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more
of a respondent’s sales of a given
product during the POR were at prices
less than the COP, we determined such
sales to have been made in ‘‘substantial
quantities.’’ See section 773(b)(2)(C) of
the Act. The sales were made within an
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
extended period of time in accordance
with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
because we examined below-cost sales
occurring during the entire POR. In such
cases, because we compared prices to
POR-average costs, we also determined
that such sales were not made at prices
which would permit recovery of all
costs within a reasonable period of time,
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D)
of the Act.
We found that, for certain products,
more than 20 percent of Huvis’
comparison market sales were at prices
less than the COP and, thus, the belowcost sales were made within an
extended period of time in substantial
quantities. In addition, these sales were
made at prices that did not provide for
the recovery of costs within a reasonable
period of time. We therefore excluded
these sales and used the remaining
sales, if any, as the basis for determining
NV, in accordance with section
773(b)(1) of the Act.
Final Results of the Review
We find that the following percentage
margin exists for the period May 1,
2003, through April 30, 2004:
Exporter/manufacturer
Huvis Corporation .........
Weighted-average
margin percentage
5.87
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1),
we have calculated exporter/importer
(or customer)-specific assessment rates
for merchandise subject to this review.
To determine whether the duty
assessment rates were de minimis, in
accordance with the requirement set
forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we
calculated importer (or customer)specific ad valorem rates by aggregating
the dumping margins calculated for all
U.S. sales to that importer (or customer)
and dividing this amount by the total
value of the sales to that importer (or
customer). Where an importer (or
customer)-specific ad valorem rate was
greater than de minimis, we calculated
a per-unit assessment rate by
aggregating the dumping margins
calculated for all U.S. sales to that
importer (or customer) and dividing this
amount by the total quantity sold to that
importer (or customer).
The Department will issue
appropriate assessment instructions
directly to the CBP within 15 days of
publication of these final results of
review.
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 237 / Monday, December 12, 2005 / Notices
Cash Deposit Rates
The following antidumping duty
deposits will be required on all
shipments of PSF from Korea entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption, effective 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 rates for the reviewed
company will be the rate listed above
(except no cash deposit will be required
if a company’s weighted-average margin
is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5
percent); (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, 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). These cash deposit requirements
shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next
administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder
to importers of their responsibility
under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 doubled antidumping
duties.
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective orders (‘‘APOs’’) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary
information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification
of the return/destruction of APO
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Dec 09, 2005
Jkt 208001
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.
We are issuing and publishing these
results and this notice in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: December 5, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
APPENDIX I
List of Comments in the Decision
Memorandum
Comment 1: Huvis’s Specialty Products
Comment 2: Antidumping Duty
Reimbursement
Comment 3: Credit Period Recalculation
Comment 4: SG&A Expense Ratio
Calculations
Comment 5: Interest Earned on Deposits
[FR Doc. 05–23924 Filed 12–9–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–122–838]
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Certain
Softwood Lumber Products From
Canada
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 12, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Constance Handley or Salim
Bhabhrawala, at (202) 482–0631 or (202)
482–1784, respectively; AD/CVD
Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUMMARY: On June 7, 2005, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
results of its second administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on certain softwood lumber from
Canada. The review covers the
following producers of subject
merchandise: Abitibi-Consolidated Inc.
(Abitibi), Buchanan Lumber Sales, Inc.
(Buchanan), Canfor Corporation
(Canfor), Tembec Inc. (Tembec), Tolko
Industries, Inc. (Tolko), Weldwood of
Canada Limited (Weldwood), West
Fraser Mills Ltd. (West Fraser), and
Weyerhaeuser Company
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73437
(Weyerhaeuser). In addition, based on
the preliminary results for these
respondents selected for individual
review, we have also determined a
weighted-average margin for those
companies that requested, but were not
selected for, individual review. The
period of review (POR) is May 1, 2003,
through April 30, 2004. We have noted
the changes made since the preliminary
results below in the ‘‘Changes Since the
Preliminary Results’’ section. The final
results are listed below in the ‘‘Final
Results of Review’’ section.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 7, 2005, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
preliminary results of the second
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
softwood lumber from Canada. See
Notice of Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Partial Resission: Certain
Softwood Lumber from Canada, 70 FR
33063 (June 7, 2005) (Preliminary
Results).
We invited parties to comment on the
Preliminary Results. On July 25, 2005,
we received case briefs from the abovementioned respondents, the Coalition
for Fair Lumber Imports Executive
Committee (the petitioner), and other
interested parties.1 The parties
submitted rebuttal briefs on August 8,
2005. A public hearing was requested
and held on September 7, 2005.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
are softwood lumber, flooring and
siding (softwood lumber products).
Softwood lumber products include all
products classified under headings
4407.1000, 4409.1010, 4409.1090, and
4409.1020, respectively, of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS), and any
softwood lumber, flooring and siding
described below. These softwood
lumber products include:
1 Case briefs were also received from the British
Columbia Lumber Trade Council, the Ontario Forest
Industries Association, the Quebec Lumber
Manufacturers Association, the Independent
Lumber Remanufacturers Association, Leggett &
Platt Ltd., Lignum Forest Products, Ltd., Millar
Western Forest Products, Ltd., Riverside Forest
Products, Ltd., TFL Forest Ltd., Central Cedar Ltd.,
Commonwealth Plywood Company, Ltd., Fontaine
Inc., Olav Haavaldsrud Inc., Produits Forestiers P.
Proulux Inc., Carrier Forest Products Ltd., Carrier
Lumber Ltd., Cheslatta Forest Products Ltd.,
Galloway Lumber Co. Ltd., Pope & Talbot Inc.,
Sigurdson Bros. Logging Company Ltd., Stuart Lake
Lumber Co. Ltd., Stuart Lake Marketing
Corporation, Teal-Jones Group, Terminal Forest
Products Ltd., West Chilcotin Forest Products Ltd.,
Wynndel Box & Lumber Co. Ltd., and the Maritimes
Lumber Bureau and the Maritime Companies.
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 237 (Monday, December 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73435-73437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23924]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-839]
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 6, 2005, the Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on certain polyester staple fiber from the Republic of
Korea. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received and
an examination of our calculations, we have made certain changes for
the final results. The final weighted-average dumping margin for Huvis
Corporation is listed below in the ``Final Results of the Review''
section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 12, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Bordas or Andrew McAllister,
Office 1, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3813
or (202) 482-1174, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 6, 2005, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
published Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review, 70 FR 32756 (June 6, 2005) (``Preliminary
Results'') in the Federal Register.
We invited parties to comment on the preliminary results of the
review. On July 6, 2005, Wellman, Inc.; Arteva Specialties, Inc. d/b/a
KoSa; and DAK Fibers, LLC (collectively, ``the petitioners''), and the
respondent,\1\ Huvis Corporation (``Huvis''), filed case briefs. On
July 11, 2005, the petitioners and Huvis filed rebuttal briefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 29, 2005, we extended the time limit for the final
results of this administrative review, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). See Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Extension of Time
Limit for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 58186 (October 5, 2005). Accordingly, the final results
of this administrative review are scheduled for completion by December
5, 2005.
Scope of the Order
For the purposes of this order, the product covered is certain
polyester staple fiber (``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 under
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.
Period of Review
The period of review (``POR'') is May 1, 2003, through April 30,
2004.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this review
[[Page 73436]]
are addressed in the December 5, 2005, Issues and Decision Memorandum
for the Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea (``Decision
Memorandum''), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this
notice as an appendix is a list of the issues which parties have raised
and to which we have responded in the Decision Memorandum. Parties can
find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the
corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on
file in the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main
Department building (``CRU''). In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at
www.ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Revocation
The Department ``may revoke, in whole or in part'' an antidumping
duty order upon completion of a review under section 751(d) the Act.
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 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 find that the request from Huvis does not meet all of the
criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from
Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
and Partial Rescission of Review, 70 FR 32756, 32757 (June 6, 2005)
(``Preliminary Results''). 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 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 sales of PSF from Korea to the United States
were made at less than normal value, we compared export price (``EP'')
to the NV. We calculated EP, NV, constructed value (``CV''), and the
cost of production (``COP''), based on the same methodologies used in
the Preliminary Results, with the following exceptions:
We have adjusted Huvis' general and administrative expense
ratio. See Memorandum from Team, through Julie H. Santoboni, to the
File, ``Final Results Calculation Memorandum for Huvis Corporation,''
dated December 5, 2005 (``Huvis Calculation Memorandum'').
For Huvis' affiliated suppliers, we have adjusted the
sales, general and administrative expense ratios. See Huvis Calculation
Memorandum. See also Decision Memorandum, at Comment 4.
Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP,
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities.''
See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The sales were made within an
extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the
Act, because we examined below-cost sales occurring during the entire
POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we
also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would
permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of Huvis'
comparison 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 provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable
period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used the
remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in accordance
with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
Final Results of the Review
We find that the following percentage margin exists for the period
May 1, 2003, through April 30, 2004:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Exporter/manufacturer margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huvis Corporation................................... 5.87
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have
calculated exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates
for merchandise subject to this review. To determine whether the duty
assessment rates were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement
set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer (or
customer)-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins
calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer (or customer) and
dividing this amount by the total value of the sales to that importer
(or customer). Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate
was greater than de minimis, we calculated a per-unit assessment rate
by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to
that importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total
quantity sold to that importer (or customer).
The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions
directly to the CBP within 15 days of publication of these final
results of review.
[[Page 73437]]
Cash Deposit Rates
The following antidumping duty deposits will be required on all
shipments of PSF from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption, effective 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 rates for the reviewed company will be
the rate listed above (except no cash deposit will be required if a
company's weighted-average margin is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5
percent); (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, 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). These cash
deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the
final results of the next administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 doubled antidumping duties.
Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (``APOs'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written 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.
We are issuing and publishing these results and this notice in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: December 5, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
APPENDIX I
List of Comments in the Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: Huvis's Specialty Products
Comment 2: Antidumping Duty Reimbursement
Comment 3: Credit Period Recalculation
Comment 4: SG&A Expense Ratio Calculations
Comment 5: Interest Earned on Deposits
[FR Doc. 05-23924 Filed 12-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
