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 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