Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58581-58583 [E6-16391]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 4, 2006 / Notices weight in kilograms of each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. Cash Deposits The following cash–deposit requirement will be effective upon publication of these final results for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For subject merchandise produced and exported by Taiside, we will establish a per–kilogram cash deposit rate that is equivalent to the company–specific cash deposit established in this review. With respect to these reviews, the Department will also notify CBP that a cash deposit of 212.39 percent ad valorem should be collected for any entries produced/ exported by Shino–Food. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as the final 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 in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO. These new shipper reviews and this notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 27, 2006. James C. Leonard, III Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES Appendix I List of Issues Company–Specific Issues Wuhan Shino–Food-Related Issues Comment 1: Rescission of Shino–Food Comment 1a: Price & Quantity VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:45 Oct 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 Comment 1b: Payment of Freight and Antidumping Duty Expenses Comment 1c: Other Indicia of Non– Bona Fides Sale Shanghai Taiside–Related Issues Comment 2 Appropriate Surrogate Value for Bottles & Caps Comment 3 Appropriate Surrogate Value for Honey [FR Doc. 06–8486 Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A–580–839 Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 31, 2006, 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: October 4, 2006. 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: Background On May 31, 2006, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) published Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Intent to Rescind, and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 30867 (May 31, 2006) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’) in the Federal Register. We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On June 30, 2006, PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 58581 Arteva Specialties S.a.r.l.; d/b/a KoSa; and Wellman, Inc. (collectively, ‘‘the petitioners’’); and the respondent, Huvis Corporation (‘‘Huvis’’), filed case briefs. On July 7, 2006, the petitioners and Huvis filed rebuttal briefs. On July 26, 2006, consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2) and 19 CFR 351.104(a)(2)(ii)(A), we rejected the petitioners’ rebuttal brief because it contained untimely filed new information. On July 27, 2006, we received a revised rebuttal brief from the petitioners. 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 5503.20.00.25 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 the order is dispositive. Period of Review The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this review are addressed in the September 28, 2006, Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM 04OCN1 58582 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 4, 2006 / Notices However, the record of this administrative review does not support a finding of interchangeability between these major inputs. Therefore, in accordance with sections 773(f)(3) and 776(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), we have relied on facts available to make a determination of market value. For the final results, we added the supplier’s profit rate, which we calculated from the supplier’s fiscal year ending 2004 financial statements, to the supplier’s COP to make a value determination for the missing market prices of these major inputs. We made this adjustment to both QTA and purified terephthalic acid because Huvis did not provide requested market prices for either input, though both are sourced from the same affiliated supplier. See Memorandum from Team, through Brandon Farlander, to the File, ‘‘Final Results Calculation Memorandum for Huvis Corporation,’’ dated September 28, 2006 (‘‘Huvis Calculation Memorandum’’); Decision Memorandum, at Comment 1. • In the computer program used to calculate NV, we have corrected a customer code for one of Huvis’s home market customers. We have also corrected the computer code used to calculate Huvis’s selling, general and administrative expense ratio and Huvis’s financial expense ratio. See Huvis Calculation Memorandum; Decision Memorandum, at Comment 6. 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 http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Partial Rescission In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily rescinded this review with respect to Daehan Synthetic Company, Ltd.1 (‘‘Daehan’’), pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). The Department confirmed using CBP data that Daehan did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. In addition, we did not receive any evidence from the petitioners that Daehan shipped subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding this review with respect to Daehan. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES 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: • In the Preliminary Results, to make a determination of value pursuant to the major input rule, the Department used the market price of middle–terephthalic acid (‘‘MTA’’) as a proxy for the missing market price of qualified terephthalic acid (‘‘QTA’’). 1 On June 30, 2005, we initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order of PSF from Korea with respect to Daehan Synthetic Company, Ltd. On September 5, 2005, in response to the Department’s antidumping duty questionnaire, we were notified by Daehan Synthetic Fiber, Co., Ltd. that Daehan Synthetic Fiber, Co., Ltd. had no shipments during the POR. See Memorandum from Yasmin Bordas to File, ‘‘Questionnaire Response from Daehan Synthetic Fiber, Co., Ltd.,’’ dated March 15, 2006. The Department confirmed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) data that no shipments of subject merchandise were exported by either Daehan Synthetic Company, Ltd. or Daehan Synthetic Fiber, Co., Ltd. during the POR. VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:45 Oct 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 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, PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of Huvis’s 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, 2004, through April 30, 2005: Exporter/manufacturer Huvis Corporation ......... Weighted–average margin percentage 4.65 Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In its September 2, 2006, Sections B– D Questionnaire Response, Huvis submitted evidence demonstrating that it was the importer of record for certain of its POR sales. We examined the CBP entry documentation submitted by Huvis and tied it to the U.S. sales listing. We noted that Huvis was indeed the importer of record for certain sales. Therefore, for purposes of calculating the importer–specific assessment rates, we have treated Huvis as the importer of record for certain POR shipments. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales where Huvis is the importer of record, Huvis submitted the reported entered value of the U.S. sales and we have calculated an importer–specific assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Regarding sales where Huvis was not the importer of record, we note that Huvis did not report the entered value for the U.S. sales in question. Accordingly, we have calculated importer–specific assessment rates, on a per kilogram basis, for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. 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– E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM 04OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 4, 2006 / Notices rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. The Department clarified its ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by Huvis for which Huvis did not know the merchandise it sold to an intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all– others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). For Daehan, in the event any entries were made during the POR through intermediaries under the CBP case number for Daehan, the Department is instructing CBP to liquidate these entries and to assess antidumping duties at the all–others rate in effect at the time of entry, consistent with the May 6, 2003 clarification discussed above. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:45 Oct 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 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: September 28, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. APPENDIX I List of Comments in the Decision Memorandum Comment 1: Major Inputs Comment 2: Overseas Office Expenses Comment 3: Inclusion of Extraordinary Losses in the G&A Calculation Comment 4: Interest Earned On Retirement Insurance Comment 5: Credit Period Recalculation Comment 6: Computer Program Errors [FR Doc. E6–16391 Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 58583 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A–570–825 Sebacic Acid from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results of Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 18, 2006, the United States Court of International Trade (‘‘the Court’’) sustained the Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’’) final remand redetermination on its entirety. See Guangdong Chemicals Import & Export Corporation v. United States, Ct. No. 05–00023, Slip Op. 06–142 (Ct. Int’l Trade September 18, 2006) (‘‘Guangdong II’’). This case arises out of the Department’s final determination of Sebacic Acid from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 75303 (December 16, 2004) (‘‘Final Results’’). The final judgment in this case was not in harmony with the Department’s Final Results. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Moats, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–5047. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background In the Final Results, the Department selected a surrogate value for sebacic acid in order to determine the portion of the factors of production attributable to sebacic acid and its co–product, capryl alcohol. See section 773(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). To obtain a surrogate value for sebacic acid, the Department used information from Indian import statistics rather than the use of data maintained by the publication Chemical Weekly in its Chemicals Import and Export trade database index (‘‘ChemImpEx’’) placed on the record and proposed by Guangdong Chemicals Import & Export Corporation (‘‘Guangdong’’). Additionally, the Department changed its methodology between the Preliminary Results (see Sebacic Acid from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Partial Recision, E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM 04OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 4, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58581-58583]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-16391]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-580-839


Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 31, 2006, 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: October 4, 2006.

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 May 31, 2006, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Intent to Rescind, 
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 
30867 (May 31, 2006) (``Preliminary Results'') in the Federal Register.
    We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On June 
30, 2006, Arteva Specialties S.a.r.l.; d/b/a KoSa; and Wellman, Inc. 
(collectively, ``the petitioners''); and the respondent, Huvis 
Corporation (``Huvis''), filed case briefs. On July 7, 2006, the 
petitioners and Huvis filed rebuttal briefs. On July 26, 2006, 
consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2) and 19 CFR 351.104(a)(2)(ii)(A), 
we rejected the petitioners' rebuttal brief because it contained 
untimely filed new information. On July 27, 2006, we received a revised 
rebuttal brief from the petitioners.

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 5503.20.00.25 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 the order is 
dispositive.

Period of Review

    The period of review (``POR'') is May 1, 2004, through April 30, 
2005.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this review are addressed in the September 28, 2006, Issues and 
Decision Memorandum for the Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic

[[Page 58582]]

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 http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 
electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Partial Rescission

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily rescinded 
this review with respect to Daehan Synthetic Company, Ltd.\1\ 
(``Daehan''), pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). The Department 
confirmed using CBP data that Daehan did not ship subject merchandise 
to the United States during the POR. In addition, we did not receive 
any evidence from the petitioners that Daehan shipped subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding this review with respect to 
Daehan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On June 30, 2005, we initiated an administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order of PSF from Korea with respect to Daehan 
Synthetic Company, Ltd. On September 5, 2005, in response to the 
Department's antidumping duty questionnaire, we were notified by 
Daehan Synthetic Fiber, Co., Ltd. that Daehan Synthetic Fiber, Co., 
Ltd. had no shipments during the POR. See Memorandum from Yasmin 
Bordas to File, ``Questionnaire Response from Daehan Synthetic 
Fiber, Co., Ltd.,'' dated March 15, 2006. The Department confirmed 
with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') data that no 
shipments of subject merchandise were exported by either Daehan 
Synthetic Company, Ltd. or Daehan Synthetic Fiber, Co., Ltd. during 
the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
     In the Preliminary Results, to make a determination of 
value pursuant to the major input rule, the Department used the market 
price of middle-terephthalic acid (``MTA'') as a proxy for the missing 
market price of qualified terephthalic acid (``QTA''). However, the 
record of this administrative review does not support a finding of 
interchangeability between these major inputs. Therefore, in accordance 
with sections 773(f)(3) and 776(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), we have relied on facts available to make a 
determination of market value. For the final results, we added the 
supplier's profit rate, which we calculated from the supplier's fiscal 
year ending 2004 financial statements, to the supplier's COP to make a 
value determination for the missing market prices of these major 
inputs. We made this adjustment to both QTA and purified terephthalic 
acid because Huvis did not provide requested market prices for either 
input, though both are sourced from the same affiliated supplier. See 
Memorandum from Team, through Brandon Farlander, to the File, ``Final 
Results Calculation Memorandum for Huvis Corporation,'' dated September 
28, 2006 (``Huvis Calculation Memorandum''); Decision Memorandum, at 
Comment 1.
     In the computer program used to calculate NV, we have 
corrected a customer code for one of Huvis's home market customers. We 
have also corrected the computer code used to calculate Huvis's 
selling, general and administrative expense ratio and Huvis's financial 
expense ratio. See Huvis Calculation Memorandum; Decision Memorandum, 
at Comment 6.

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's 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, 2004, through April 30, 2005:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-average
                Exporter/manufacturer                  margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huvis Corporation...................................                4.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries.
    In its September 2, 2006, Sections B-D Questionnaire Response, 
Huvis submitted evidence demonstrating that it was the importer of 
record for certain of its POR sales. We examined the CBP entry 
documentation submitted by Huvis and tied it to the U.S. sales listing. 
We noted that Huvis was indeed the importer of record for certain 
sales. Therefore, for purposes of calculating the importer-specific 
assessment rates, we have treated Huvis as the importer of record for 
certain POR shipments. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales 
where Huvis is the importer of record, Huvis submitted the reported 
entered value of the U.S. sales and we have calculated an importer-
specific assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of 
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total 
entered value of those sales.
    Regarding sales where Huvis was not the importer of record, we note 
that Huvis did not report the entered value for the U.S. sales in 
question. Accordingly, we have calculated importer-specific assessment 
rates, on a per kilogram basis, for the merchandise in question by 
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each 
importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. 
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-

[[Page 58583]]

specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of 
subject merchandise during the period of review produced by Huvis for 
which Huvis did not know the merchandise it sold to an intermediary 
(e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the 
United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate 
unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the 
intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full 
discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 
2003).
    For Daehan, in the event any entries were made during the POR 
through intermediaries under the CBP case number for Daehan, the 
Department is instructing CBP to liquidate these entries and to assess 
antidumping duties at the all-others rate in effect at the time of 
entry, consistent with the May 6, 2003 clarification discussed above.
    The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions to 
CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review.

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: September 28, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.

APPENDIX I

List of Comments in the Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Major Inputs
Comment 2: Overseas Office Expenses
Comment 3: Inclusion of Extraordinary Losses in the G&A Calculation
Comment 4: Interest Earned On Retirement Insurance
Comment 5: Credit Period Recalculation
Comment 6: Computer Program Errors
[FR Doc. E6-16391 Filed 10-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S