Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 77373-77382 [E6-22071]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 2006 (‘‘Decision Memo’’), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the antidumping duty order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in room B–099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A–570–905) Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of China Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 26, 2006. SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that certain polyester staple fiber (‘‘PSF’’) from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than Preliminary Results of Review fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as The Department preliminarily amended (‘‘the Act’’). The estimated determines that revocation of the margins of sales at LTFV are shown in antidumping duty order on OCTG from the ‘‘Preliminary Determination’’ Mexico is likely to lead to continuation section of this notice. or recurrence of dumping at the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: following weighted–average margins: Michael Holton or Paul Walker, AD/ Manufacturers/ProWeighted–Average CVD Operations, Office 9, Import ducers/Exporters Margin (Percent) Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of TAMSA ......................... 21.70 Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Hylsa ............................. 0.62 Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; All Others ...................... 21.70 telephone: (202) 482–1324 or 482–0413, respectively. Any interested party may request a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: hearing within 30 days of publication of Initiation this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties may On June 23, 2006, the Department of submit case briefs no later than 50 days Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a petition on imports of PSF from the PRC after the date of publication of this filed in proper form by Dak Americas notice, in accordance with 19 CFR LLC., Nan Ya Plastics Corporation 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which America, and Wellman, Inc. must be limited to issues raised in the (‘‘Petitioners’’) on behalf of the domestic case briefs, may be filed no later than industry and workers producing PSF. five days after the case briefs, in This investigation was initiated on July accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). 13, 2006. See Initiation of Antidumping Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after rebuttal briefs are due, in Duty Investigation: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). of China, 71 FR 41201 (July 20, 2006) The Department will issue a notice of (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). Additionally, in final results of this sunset review, which the Initiation Notice, the Department will include the results of its analysis of notified parties of the application issues raised in any such briefs, no later process by which exporters and than April 27, 2007. producers may obtain separate–rate This five–year (‘‘sunset’’) review and status in non–market economy (‘‘NME’’) notice are in accordance with sections investigations. The new process requires 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. exporters and producers to submit a separate–rate status application. See Dated: December 18, 2006. Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate–Rates David M. Spooner, Practice and Application of Assistant Secretary for Import Combination Rates in Antidumping Administration. Investigations involving Non–Market [FR Doc. E6–22076 Filed 12–22–06; 8:45 am] Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005), BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S (‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’) available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. However, the VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:15 Dec 22, 2006 Jkt 211001 AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 77373 standard for eligibility for a separate rate (which is whether a firm can demonstrate an absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over its export activities) has not changed. On August 7, 2006, the United States International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports from the PRC of PSF. The ITC’s determination was published in the Federal Register on August 11, 2006. See Investigation No. 731–TA– 1104 (Preliminary), Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from China, 71 FR 46241 (August 11, 2006). Scope Comments The Department also set aside a 20day period from the publication of the initiation for all interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department did not receive any comments from interested parties regarding product coverage during the 20-day period and subsequently, did not change the scope in the Initiation Notice. Quantity and Value On July 19, 2006, the Department requested quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’) information from a total of 106 companies that Petitioners identified as potential producers or exporters of PSF from the PRC. Also, on July 19, 2006, the Department sent a letter requesting Q&V information to the China Bureau of Fair Trade for Imports & Exports (‘‘BOFT’’) of the Ministry of Commerce (‘‘MOFCOM’’) requesting that BOFT transmit the letter to all companies who manufacture and export subject merchandise to the United States, or produce the subject merchandise for the companies who were engaged in exporting the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. For a complete list of all parties from which the Department requested Q&V information, see Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Michael Holton, Sr. International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping Investigation of Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of China, dated September 18, 2006, (‘‘Respondent Selection Memorandum’’). Between August 8, 2006, and August 21, 2006, the Department received Q&V responses from 19 interested parties. The Department did not receive any type of communication from BOFT regarding its E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM 26DEN1 77374 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices request for Q&V information. See Respondent Selection Memorandum at 1. On September 18, 2006, the Department selected Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. (‘‘Cixi Jiangnan’’), Far Eastern Industries (Shanghai) Ltd. (‘‘Far Eastern’’) and Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. (‘‘Ningbo Dafa’’) as mandatory respondents in this investigation. See Respondent Selection Memorandum at 4. Surrogate Country On September 28, 2006, the Department determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. See Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9: Antidumping Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, dated September 28, 2006. On October 5, 2006, the Department requested comments on the surrogate country selection from the interested parties in these reviews. Petitioners submitted surrogate country comments on October 27, 2006. Far Eastern submitted surrogate country comments on November 9, 2006. On November 20, 2006, Petitioners submitted rebuttal surrogate country comments. No other interested parties commented on the selection of a surrogate country. For a detailed discussion of the selection of the surrogate country, see ‘‘Surrogate Country’’ section below, and the Memorandum to the File through James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country, dated December 15, 2006 (‘‘Surrogate Country Memorandum’’). sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Separate Rates Applications Between August 16, 2006, and August 21, 2006, we received separate–rate applications from seventeen companies, including the mandatory respondents: Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa. On September 13, 2006, and September 14, 2006, we received applications from Hangzhou Taifu Textile Fiber Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hangzhou Taifu’’) and Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co., Ltd., respectively. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:15 Dec 22, 2006 Jkt 211001 Questionnaires On September 6, 2006, the Department requested comments from all interested parties on proposed product characteristics and model match criteria to be used in the designation of control numbers (‘‘CONNUMs’’) to be assigned to the subject merchandise. The Department received comments from Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Springs Global US, Inc. (‘‘Springs Global’’) and Petitioners. The Department also received rebuttal comments from Ningbo Dafa. On September 20, 2006, the Department issued its sections A, C, D, and E, questionnaire with product characteristics and model match criteria used in the designation of CONNUMs and assigned to the merchandise under consideration. On November 27, 2006, the Department requested supplemental information from Hangzhou Taifu. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, and Ningbo Dafa between October and November 2006, and received responses between October and December 2006. On December 7 and 8, 2006, Petitioners submitted Comments on Cixi Jiangnan’s, Far Eastern’s and Ningbo Dafa’s December 4, 2006, supplemental questionnaires responses. On December 11, 2006, Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa responded to Petitioners’ comments. The Department was unable to fully consider Petitioners’ December 7 and 8, 2006, comments and respondents’ December 11, 2006, comments because they were filed less than 10 days before the preliminary determination. Surrogate Value Comments On November 9, 2006, Petitioners, Far Eastern, Cixi Jiangnan and Ningbo Dafa submitted comments on surrogate information with which to value the factors of production in this proceeding. On November 20, 2006, Petitioners filed rebuttal comments on surrogate information with which to value the factors of production in this proceeding. On December 4, 2006, Ningbo Dafa submitted additional surrogate value comments. Critical Circumstances On September 29, 2006, Petitioners alleged that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist with respect to the antidumping investigation of PSF from the PRC. On October 5, 2006, the Department issued questionnaires requesting data for monthly exports to the United States from January 2003 through September 2006 from Cixi PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa, and received responses on October. For a detailed discussion, please see the ‘‘Critical Circumstances’’ section below. Postponement of Preliminary Determination On November 16, 2006, the Department informed Petitioners, Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, and Ningbo Dafa of our intent to postpone the preliminary determination pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act by fifteen days to December 15, 2006. On December 5, 2006, the Department published a postponement of the preliminary antidumping duty determination on PSF from the PRC. See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 70508 (December 5, 2006). Period of Investigation The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is October 1, 2006, through March 31, 2006. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (June 23, 2006). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Scope of Investigation The merchandise subject to this proceeding is 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 subject merchandise 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. The following products are excluded from the scope: (1) PSF of less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at subheading 5503.20.0025 and known to the industry as PSF for spinning and generally used in woven and knit applications to produce textile and apparel products; (2) PSF of 10 to 18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches and that are generally used in the manufacture of carpeting; and (3) low–melt PSF defined as a bi– component fiber with an outer, non– polyester sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner polyester core (classified at HTSUS 5503.20.0015). Certain PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheadings 5503.20.0045 and E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM 26DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices 5503.20.0065. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the orders is dispositive. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Non–Market-Economy Country For purposes of initiation, Petitioners submitted LTFV analyses for the PRC as a non–market economy. See Initiation Notice, 71 FR at 41203. The Department considers the PRC to be a NME country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, (‘‘TRBs’’) From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results 2001–2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in Final Results of 2001–2002 Administrative Review: TRBs from the People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 2003). No party has challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME country in this investigation. Therefore, we have treated the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this preliminary determination. Surrogate Country When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value, in most circumstances, on the NME producer’s factors of production valued in a surrogate market–economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market–economy countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate values we have used in this investigation are discussed under the normal value section below. As detailed in the Surrogate Country Memorandum, the Department has preliminarily selected India as the surrogate country on the basis that: (1) it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to 733(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) we have reliable data from India that we can use to value the factors of production. Thus, we have calculated normal value using Indian prices when available and appropriate to value Cixi VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:15 Dec 22, 2006 Jkt 211001 Jiangnan’s, Far Eastern’s and Ningbo Dafa’s factors of production. See Memorandum to the File from Paul Walker, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, and James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Determination, dated December 15, 2006 (‘‘Factor Value Memorandum’’). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final determination in an antidumping investigation, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value the factors of production within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. Affiliations Based on the evidence on the record in this investigation and based on the evidence presented in Far Eastern’s questionnaire responses, we preliminarily find that Far Eastern is affiliated with Far Eastern Polychem Industries (‘‘FEPI’’), WuHan Far Eastern Industrial Trading Ltd. (‘‘WHFE’’), Alberta & Orient Co., Ltd (Canada) (‘‘A&O’’), Yuang Ding Investment Co. Ltd. (‘‘YDIC’’), Everest Investment (Holding) Limited (‘‘EIHL’’), Everest Textile Co. Ltd. (‘‘Everest Textile’’), Far Eastern Industrial (Suzhou) Ltd. (‘‘FEIZ’’), Far Eastern Industrial (Wuxi) Ltd. (‘‘FEIW’’) and Far Eastern Textiles (Taiwan) Ltd.’s (‘‘FETL’’), in addition to FETL’s other related parties, pursuant to sections 771(33)(E), (F), and (G) of the Act. Additionally, based on the evidence on the record in this investigation and presented in Ningbo Dafa’s questionnaire responses, we preliminarily find that Ningbo Dafa is affiliated with Cixi Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd., Ferry Fly Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. and Worthal Limited Partnership pursuant to sections 771(33)(E), (F), and (G) of the Act. We preliminarily find that it is not necessary to collapse Far Eastern or Ningbo Dafa with its affiliates because there is no record evidence demonstrating that there is significant potential for manipulation of price or production with its affiliates. We note that the Department normally considers three criteria for collapsing: (i) the level of common ownership; (ii) the extent to which managerial employees or board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an affiliated firm; and (iii) whether operations are intertwined, such as through the sharing of sales information, involvement in production and pricing decisions, the sharing of facilities or employees, or significant transactions between the affiliated PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 77375 producers. See 19 C.F.R. Sec. 351.401(f)(2). Separate Rates In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department’s policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa, and the Separate–Rate Applicants have provided company–specific information to demonstrate that they operate independently of de jure and de facto government control, and therefore satisfy the standards for the assignment of a separate rate. We have considered whether each PRC company that submitted a complete application is eligible for a separate rate. The Department’s separate–rate test is not concerned, in general, with macroeconomic/border–type controls, e.g., export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China, 63 FR 72255, 72256 (December 31, 1998). The test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision–making process at the individual firm level. See Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997). To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as further developed in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). In E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM 26DEN1 77376 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices accordance with the separate–rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export activities. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 1. Absence of De Jure Control The Department considers the following de jure criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter’s business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. The evidence provided by Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa and the Separate–Rate Applicants supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on the following: 1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter’s business and export licenses; 2) the applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and 3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of China: Separate Rates Memorandum, dated December 15, 2006 (‘‘Separate Rates Memorandum’’). 2. Absence of De Facto Control Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by or are subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:15 Dec 22, 2006 Jkt 211001 analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. We determine that, for Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa and the Separate–Rate Applicants, the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of governmental control based on record statements and supporting documentation showing the following: 1) each exporter sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority; 2) each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses; 3) each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and 4) each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa and the Separate–Rate Applicants demonstrate an absence of de jure and de facto government control with respect to each of the exporter’s exports of the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. As a result, for the purposes of this preliminary determination, we have granted separate company–specific rates to Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa. Additionally, we have granted the Separate–Rate Applicants a weighted– average margin for the purposes of this preliminary determination. See Separate Rates Memorandum. The PRC–Wide Entity The Department has data that indicates there were more exporters of PSF from the PRC than those indicated in the response to our request for Q&V information during the POI. See Respondent Selection Memorandum. We issued our request for Q&V information to 106 potential Chinese exporters of the subject merchandise, in addition to BOFT and MOFCOM.1 We received only 19 Q&V responses and 3 Q&V responses that were improperly filed. See Respondent Selection Memorandum at 1–2. We did not receive Q&V responses from most of the companies to which we sent our request for Q&V information. See Id. 1 For a list of companies to which the Department sent its request for Q&V information, see Respondent Selection Memorandum at 1. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Information on the record of this investigation indicates that there are numerous producers/exporters of PSF in the PRC. Based upon our knowledge of the volume of imports of subject merchandise from the PRC, the companies which responded to the Q&V questionnaire, the Separate–Rate Applicants, Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, and Ningbo Dafa do not account for all imports into the United States. Although all exporters were given an opportunity to provide Q&V information, not all exporters provided a response to the Department’s Q&V letter. Further, the Government of the PRC did not respond to the Department’s questionnaire. Therefore, the Department determines preliminarily that there were PRC exporters of the subject merchandise during the POI from PRC producers/ exporters that did not respond to the Department’s request for information. We have treated these PRC producers/ exporters as part of the PRC–wide entity because they did not qualify for a separate rate. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party (A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Information on the record of this investigation indicates that the PRC– wide entity was non–responsive. Certain companies did not respond to our request for Q&V information and did not respond to the Department’s questionnaire. As a result, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find that the use of facts available is appropriate to determine the PRC–wide rate. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003). Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM 26DEN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold–Rolled Flat– Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel Products from the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000); see also ‘‘Statement of Administrative Action,’’ accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’). We find that, because the PRC–wide entity did not respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference is appropriate. Further, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) information derived from the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for adverse facts available, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.’’ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). It is the Department’s practice to select, as AFA, the higher of the (a) highest margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate of any respondent in the investigation. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold–Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at ‘‘Facts Available.’’ In the instant investigation, as AFA, we have assigned to the PRC– wide entity a margin based on information in the petition, because the margin derived from the petition is higher than the calculated margins for the selected respondents. In this case, we have applied the petition rate of 44.30 percent. Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:15 Dec 22, 2006 Jkt 211001 sources reasonably at its disposal.2 The SAA also states that the independent sources may include published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. See SAA at 870. The SAA also clarifies that ‘‘corroborate’’ means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870. As noted in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), unchanged in Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part: Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan, 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 2005), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. Petitioners’ methodology for calculating the export price and normal value in the petition is discussed in the initiation notice. See Initiation Notice at 41203. To corroborate the AFA margin selected, we compared the U.S. price and normal values from the petition to the U.S. price and normal values for the respondents. See Memorandum to the File through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Corroboration of the PRC–Wide Facts Available Rate for the Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of PSF and parts thereof from the People’s Republic of China, dated December 15, 2006, (‘‘Corroboration Memorandum’’). Accordingly, we find that the rate of 44.30 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. Consequently, we are applying 44.30 percent as the single antidumping rate to the PRC–wide entity. The PRC–wide rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under investigation except for entries from Cixi Jiangnan, Far 2 Secondary information is described in the SAA as ‘‘information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.’’ See SAA at 870. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 77377 Eastern, Ningbo Dafa and the SeparateRate Applicants. Margin for the Separate Rate Applicants The Department received timely and complete separate rates applications from the Separate Rates Applicants, who are all exporters of PSF from the PRC, which were not selected as mandatory respondents in this investigation. Through the evidence in their applications, these companies have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate, as discussed above in the ‘‘Separate Rates’’ section and in the Separate Rates Memorandum. Consistent with the Department’s practice, as the separate rate, we have established a weighted–average margin for the Separate Rates Applicants based on the rates we calculated for Ningbo Dafa, Cixi Jiangnan and Far Eastern, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on AFA. Companies receiving this rate are identified by name in the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of this notice. Date of Sale Section 351.401(i) of the Department’s regulations states that, ‘‘in identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer’s records kept in the normal course of business.’’ However, the Secretary may use a date other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i); See also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090–1093 (CIT 2001) (‘‘Allied Tube’’). The date of sale is generally the date on which the parties agree upon all substantive terms of the sale. This normally includes the price, quantity, delivery terms and payment terms. In order to simplify the determination of date of sale for both the respondent and the Department and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), the date of sale will normally be the date of the invoice, as recorded in the exporter’s or producer’s records kept in the ordinary course of business, unless satisfactory evidence is presented that the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale on some other date. In other words, the date of the invoice is the presumptive date of sale, although this presumption may be overcome. For instance, in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan, 61 FR 14067 (March 29, 1996), E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM 26DEN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 77378 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices the Department used the date of the purchase order as the date of sale because the terms of sale were established at that point. After examining the questionnaire responses and the sales documentation that Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa placed on the record, we preliminarily determine that invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale for Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa. In its supplemental section A response, dated November 16, 2006, Far Eastern explained that it had incorrectly stated that it did not encounter any changes to the material terms of sale from its purchase orders. Instead, its original statement should have read that material terms of the sale from its commercial invoice had not changed during the POI. Additionally, Far Eastern provided several specific examples where it did encounter changes to the material terms of sale from its purchase orders. These examples included a cancellation of a sale and order changes that affected the price, quantity, product types and shipping destination. Petitioners, however, claim that the purchase order date is the most appropriate date of sale because Far Eastern stated that it did not encounter any changes with respect to the material terms of the sale from its purchase orders in its original section A questionnaire response, dated October 12, 2006. Petitioners have requested that the Department use the purchase order date because Far Eastern stated that the terms of sale did not change after the purchase order was issued. In Allied Tube, the Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) found that a ‘‘party seeking to establish a date of sale other than invoice date bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to ’satisfy’ the Department that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.’’’ Allied Tube 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1092. Therefore, for this preliminary determination, the Department finds that based on the information on the record, Petitioners have failed to rebut the presumption that the invoice date is not the appropriate date of sale for Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern or Ningbo Dafa. Each respondent has provided various examples of material changes to their purchase orders during the POI. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin From the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 79054 (December 27, 2005). VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:15 Dec 22, 2006 Jkt 211001 Fair Value Comparisons Normal Value To determine whether sales of PSF to the United States by Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa were made at less than fair value, we compared the export price (‘‘EP’’) to normal value (‘‘NV’’), as described in the ‘‘U.S. Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. We compared NV to weighted– average EPs in accordance with section 777A(d)(1) of the Act. Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using a factors–of-production methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home–market prices, third–country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on the FOP because the presence of government controls on various aspects of non–market economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under the Department’s normal methodologies. During the POI, Far Eastern did not have production of all types of merchandise for which it had POI sales. Consequently, Far Eastern reported in the factors of production database the most closely resembling CONNUM produced during the POI for the merchandise that was sold, but not produced during the POI. At the Department’s request, Far Eastern also submitted factors of production information covering the six-month period prior to the POI for the merchandise that was sold, but not produced during the POI, which included factors of production most closely resembling the CONNUM produced during the POI. Therefore, the Department has determined to use the additional six-month information provided by Far Eastern. See Far Eastern Analysis Memorandum. In addition, Ningbo Dafa produced subject merchandise in more than one facility. Ningbo Dafa has stated that all subject merchandise sales to the United States and their respective CONNUMs may be tied to a single production facility. The Petitioners have argued that the Department should calculate normal value using factors of production from all of Ningbo Dafa’s production facilities. However, absent record information to the contrary, for this preliminary determination, the Department has only included the factors of production from this single facility in our calculation of normal value. See Ningbo Dafa Analysis Memorandum for a more complete explanation. The Department will continue to examine this issue for the final determination. U.S. Price Export Price For Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa, we based U.S. price on EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. Where applicable, we deducted foreign movement expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, and international freight expenses from the starting price (gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Where foreign movement or international ocean freight was provided by PRC service providers or paid for in Renminbi (‘‘RMB’’), we valued these services using surrogate values (see ‘‘Factors of Production’’ section below for further discussion). For a complete discussion of specific respondent calculations of the U.S. price, see Memorandum to the File from Michael Holton, Senior Case Analyst: Program Analysis for the Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of China: Cixi Jiangnan, dated December 15, 2006 (‘‘Cixi Jiangnan Analysis Memorandum’’); Memorandum to the File from Michael Holton, Senior Case Analyst: Program Analysis for the Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of China: Far Eastern, dated December 15, 2006 (‘‘Far Eastern Analysis Memorandum’’); and Memorandum to The File from Paul Walker, Senior Case Analyst, Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of China: Analysis Memo for Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd., dated December 15, 2006 (‘‘Ningbo Dafa Analysis Memorandum’’). PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Critical Circumstances On September 29, 2006, Petitioners alleged that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist with respect to the antidumping investigation of PSF from the PRC. On October 19, 2006, Cixi E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM 26DEN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa submitted information on their exports from January 2003 through September 2006 as requested by the Department. In accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 351.206(c)(2)(i), because Petitioners submitted critical circumstances allegations more than 20 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination, the Department must issue preliminary critical circumstances determinations not later than the date of the preliminary determination. Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or (ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales; and (B) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department’s regulations provides that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been ‘‘massive,’’ the Department normally will examine: (i) the volume and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, section 351.206(h)(2) of the Department’s regulations provides that an increase in imports of 15 percent during the ‘‘relatively short period’’ of time may be considered ‘‘massive.’’ Section 351.206(i) of the Department’s regulations defines ‘‘relatively short period’’ as normally being the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months later. The regulations also provide, however, that if the Department finds that importers, exporters, or producers had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, the Department may consider a period of not less than three months from that earlier time. In accordance with Section 733(e)(1)(A)(I) of the Act and as discussed in the Critical Circumstances Memorandum, the Department preliminarily finds that there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States and elsewhere of the subject merchandise based on the existence of foreign antidumping duty VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:15 Dec 22, 2006 Jkt 211001 orders of PSF, and the ITC’s preliminary determination of material injury. See Memorandum to Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD Operations from James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances (‘‘Critical Circumstance Memorandum’’). For the reasons set forth in the Critical Circumstances Memorandum, we find that there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period for Far Eastern, but not for Ningbo Dafa, Cixi Jiangnan, the Separate Rates Applicants and the PRC–wide entity. See Critical Circumstance Memorandum at Attachment 5–7. We find that some importers, exporters, or producers knew or should have known an antidumping case was pending on PSF imports from the PRC in March of 2006 because there is record evidence that many of the Chinese producers begin planning the antidumping investigation. Therefore, we relied on a period of six months as the period, which is the maximum duration for the information we have available at this time, for comparison in preliminarily determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been massive. Therefore, given the analysis summarized above, and described in more detail in the Critical Circumstances Memorandum, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist for imports of PSF from exist for Far Eastern, but do not exist for imports of PSF from Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa, the Separate–Rates Applicants and the PRC–wide entity. We will make a final determination concerning critical circumstances for all producers/ exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC when we make our final dumping determination in this investigation, which is currently 75 days after the preliminary determination. Factor Valuation Methodology In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP data reported by respondents for the POI. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per–unit factor–consumption rates by publicly available surrogate values (except as discussed below). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 77379 delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407– 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all surrogate values used for respondents can be found in the Factor Value Memorandum and company–specific analysis memorandum. Additionally, for detailed descriptions of all actual values used for market–economy inputs, see the company–specific analysis memoranda dated December 15, 2006. See Cixi Jiangnan Analysis Memorandum; Far Eastern Analysis Memorandum; and Ningbo Dafa Analysis Memorandum. For this preliminary determination, the Department will use Far Eastern’s reported market economy price of ethylene glycol from its unaffiliated supplier. However, the Department will continue to review whether Far Eastern is affiliated with its ethylene glycol supplier. If the Department finds that Far Eastern and its ethylene glycol supplier are affiliated, the Department will consider whether these purchases were made at arms–length in the final determination. See Far Eastern Analysis Memorandum. For this preliminary determination, in accordance with the Department’s practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics in order to calculate surrogate values for the mandatory respondents’ material inputs. In selecting the best available information for valuing FOP in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department’s practice is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are non–export average values, most contemporaneous with the POI, product–specific, and tax–exclusive. See e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). The record shows that data in the Indian Import Statistics represents import data that is E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM 26DEN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 77380 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices contemporaneous with the POI, product–specific, and tax–exclusive. Where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the POI with which to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) as published in the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund. Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import–based surrogate values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non–industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these countries may be subsidized. See Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 2002); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) (‘‘CTVs from the PRC’’). We are also directed by the legislative history not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 100–576 at 590 (1988). Rather, Congress directed the Department to base its decision on information that is available to it at the time it makes its determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries either in calculating the Indian import–based surrogate values or in calculating market–economy input values. In instances where a market–economy input was obtained solely from suppliers located in these countries, we used Indian import–based surrogate values to value the input. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From The People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. For Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, and Ningbo Dafa, certain inputs into the production of the merchandise under investigation were purchased from market economy suppliers and paid for in market economy currencies. For these inputs all purchases were made from a market economy supplier and paid in a VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:15 Dec 22, 2006 Jkt 211001 market economy currency, and the Department has therefore used the weighted–average POI price experienced by each respondent for these inputs. Therefore, we used the individual market economy prices experienced by Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, and Ningbo Dafa when the inputs were obtained from a market economy, paid for in a market economy currency, and was a significant portion of the total purchases of that input. The Department used the Indian Import Statistics to value the raw material and packing material inputs that Far Eastern, Cixi Jiangnan, and Ningbo Dafa used to produce the subject merchandise during the POI, except where listed below. Absent adequate information on the record to value PSF waste (fiber, ‘‘popcorn’’ and lump), for this preliminary determination, we are using an average of three Indian HTS numbers, 5503.20.00, 3915.90.42 and 3915.90.90, which represent values for raw PET bottles, finished PSF and plastic scrap, respectively. We note that the Department ‘‘need not prove that its methodology was the only way or even the best way to calculate surrogate values for factors of production, as long as it was a reasonable way.’’ See Coalition for the Pres. of Am. Brake Drum and Rotor Aftermakret Mfs. v. u.S.s., 23 CIT 88, 118, 44 F.Supp.2d 229, 258 (1999); Shakeproof Assembly Components v. U.S., Slip–Op 06–129 (August 25, 2006). We find that, given the information on the record, that averaging HTS numbers 5503.20.00, 3915.90.42 and 3915.90.90 is the most reasonable way to value PSF waste. For a detailed description of PSF waste and all other surrogate values used for respondents, see Factor Value Memorandum. To value electricity and diesel fuel, the Department used rates from Key World Energy Statistics 2003, published by the International Energy Agency. Because these data were not contemporaneous to the POI, we adjusted for inflation using WPI. See Factor Value Memorandum. For natural gas, we applied a surrogate value obtained from the Gas Authority of India Ltd. website, a supplier of natural gas in India, covering the period January through June 2002. In addition, based on the February 1, 2005, article from Chemical Weekly, we note that the Petroleum Ministry had been considering raising the price but no action was taken. Therefore, consistent with the Department’s recent determination in Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People’s Republic of China, we took the average of the base and ceiling prices, added the transportation charge, PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 and inflated the calculated value using the appropriate WPI inflator. See Surrogate Value Memo and Polyvinyl Alcohol From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 27991 (May 15, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. The Department valued steam following the methodology used in the investigation of Certain Tissue Paper Products and Certain Crepe Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China, but updated the natural gas price. See Factor Value Memorandum and Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination for Certain Tissue Paper Products, 69 FR 56407 (September 21, 2004), unchanged in the final determination, Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 7475 (February 14, 2005). For direct, indirect, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression–based wage rate as reported on Import Administration’s home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in November 2005, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ wages/index.html. The source of these wage–rate data on the Import Administration’s web site is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. Because this regression– based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondent. See Factor Value Memorandum. Because water is essential to the production process of the subject merchandise, the Department considers water to be a direct material input, and not as overhead, and valued water with a surrogate value according to our practice. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October 28, 2003) and, accompanying Issue and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11. Although some suppliers have reported that they obtain water from a well, we find that whether the producer pays for water is irrelevant in determining whether it should be considered a direct material input. Further, there is no evidence on the E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM 26DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices record that the Indian producer of polyester staple fiber from which we are obtaining an overhead financial ratio accounts for water as an overhead expense. The Department valued water using data from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (www.midcindia.org) since it includes a wide range of industrial water tariffs. This source provides 386 industrial water rates within the Maharashtra province from June 2003: 193 for the ‘‘inside industrial areas’’ usage category and 193 for the ‘‘outside industrial areas’’ usage category. Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rate for inflation. See Factor Value Memorandum. We used Indian transport information in order to value the freight–in cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the best available information for valuing truck freight to be from www.infreight.com. This source provides daily rates from six major points of origin to five destinations in India during the POI. The Department obtained a price quote on the first day of each month of the POI from each point of origin to each destination and averaged the data accordingly. See Factor Value Memorandum. Consistent with the calculation of inland truck freight, the Department used the same freight distances used in the calculation of inland truck freight, as reported by www.infreight.com to derive a value in Rupees per kilogram per kilometer. See Factor Value Memorandum. The Department used two sources to calculate a surrogate value for domestic brokerage expenses. The Department averaged December 2003–November 2004 data contained in Essar Steel’s February 28, 2005, public version response submitted in the AD administrative review of Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India with October 2002–September 2003 data contained in Pidilite Industries’ March 9, 2004, public version response submitted in the AD investigation of Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India (see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 67306 (November 17, 2004)). The brokerage expense data reported by Essar Steel and Pidilite Industries in their public versions is ranged data. The Department first derived an average per–unit amount from each source. Then the Department adjusted each average rate for inflation. Finally, the Department averaged the two per–unit amounts to derive an overall average rate for the POI. See Factor Value Memorandum. To value marine insurance, the Department obtained a price quote from http://www.rjgconsultants.com/ insurance.html, a market–economy provider of marine insurance. See Factor Value Memo Memorandum. To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit, we used the audited financial statements from Indo Rama’s 2005/2006 Annual Report and Reliance Industries Ltd.’s 2005/2006 Annual Report. See Factor Value Memorandum. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Verification As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify the information upon which we will rely in making our final determination. 77381 Combination Rates In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. See Initiation Notice, 70 FR 35625, 35629. This change in practice is described in Policy Bulletin 05.1, available at http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/. The Policy Bulletin 05.1, states: ‘‘[w]hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non– investigated firms receiving the weighted–average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of ‘‘combination rates’’ because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash– deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.’’ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6. Preliminary Determination The weighted–average dumping margins are as follows: PSF FROM THE PRC - WEIGHTED–AVERAGE DUMPING MARGINS sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Exporter & Producer Weighted–Average Deposit Rate Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Co., Ltd. ........................................................................................................ Far Eastern Industries (Shanghai) Ltd. ............................................................................................... Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................ Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................. Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................... Cixi Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................ Hangzhou Best Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................ Hangzhou Hanbang Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd., ................................................................................... Hangzhou Huachuang Co., Ltd. .......................................................................................................... Hangzhou Sanxin Paper Co., Ltd. ....................................................................................................... Hangzhou Taifu Textile Fiber Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................... Jiaxang Fuda Chemical Fibre Factory ................................................................................................ Nantong Luolai Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd. ............................................................................................. Nanyang Textile Co., Ltd. .................................................................................................................... Suzhou PolyFiber Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................. Xiamen Xianglu Fiber Chemical Co. ................................................................................................... Zhaoqing Tifo New Fiber Co., Ltd. ...................................................................................................... Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co., Ltd. .......................................................................................... VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:15 Dec 22, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM 15.30% 10.45% 4.39% 9.25% 9.25% 9.25% 9.25% 9.25% 9.25% 9.25% 9.25% 9.25% 9.25% 9.25% 9.25% 9.25% 9.25% 9.25% 26DEN1 77382 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices PSF FROM THE PRC - WEIGHTED–AVERAGE DUMPING MARGINS—Continued Exporter & Producer Weighted–Average Deposit Rate Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.. ....................................................................................... PRC–Wide Rate .................................................................................................................................. Disclosure We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to suspend liquidation of all entries of PSF from the PRC as described in the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from Ningo Dafa, Cixi Jiangnan, the Separate Rate Applicants and the PRC–wide entity on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted–average amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. For Far Eastern, we will direct CBP to suspend liquidation of any entries of PSF from the PRC as described in the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 90 days prior to the date of publication in the Federal Register of our preliminary determination. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of PSF, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise within 45 days of our final determination. Public Comment Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days after the date of the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in case briefs no later than five days after the deadline VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:15 Dec 22, 2006 Jkt 211001 date for case briefs. A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing three days after the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party’s name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party’s case brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in that party’s rebuttal brief. We will make our final determination no later than 75 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a) of the Act. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 15, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–22071 Filed 12–22–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 9.25% 44.30% DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A–570–878 Saccharin from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on saccharin from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), covering the period July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. Based on the withdrawal of the requests for review with respect to two companies, we are rescinding this administrative review, in part. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 26, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Moats, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, Room 1870, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5047. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On July 3, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on saccharin from the PRC. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 71 FR 37890, (July 3, 2006). We received timely requests for review from Amgal Chemical Products (1989) Ltd. (‘‘Amgal’’), Shanghai Fortune Chemical Company, Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai Fortune’’), and Suzhou Fine Chemical Co. Group Ltd. (‘‘Suzhou’’). On August 30, 2006, the Department published a notice of the initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on saccharin from the PRC for the period July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM 26DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 26, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77373-77382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-22071]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-570-905)


Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  December 26, 2006.
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that certain polyester staple fiber 
(``PSF'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') is being, or is 
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value 
(``LTFV''), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown 
in the ``Preliminary Determination'' section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Holton or Paul Walker, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1324 or 482-0413, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Initiation

    On June 23, 2006, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
received a petition on imports of PSF from the PRC filed in proper form 
by Dak Americas LLC., Nan Ya Plastics Corporation America, and Wellman, 
Inc. (``Petitioners'') on behalf of the domestic industry and workers 
producing PSF. This investigation was initiated on July 13, 2006. See 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Polyester Staple 
Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 41201 (July 20, 2006) 
(``Initiation Notice''). Additionally, in the Initiation Notice, the 
Department notified parties of the application process by which 
exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate status in non-market 
economy (``NME'') investigations. The new process requires exporters 
and producers to submit a separate-rate status application. See Policy 
Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination 
Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy 
Countries, (April 5, 2005), (``Policy Bulletin 05.1'') available at 
http://ia.ita.doc.gov. However, the standard for eligibility for a 
separate rate (which is whether a firm can demonstrate an absence of 
both de jure and de facto governmental control over its export 
activities) has not changed.
    On August 7, 2006, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``ITC'') issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there 
is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of 
imports from the PRC of PSF. The ITC's determination was published in 
the Federal Register on August 11, 2006. See Investigation No. 731-TA-
1104 (Preliminary), Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from China, 71 FR 
46241 (August 11, 2006).

Scope Comments

    The Department also set aside a 20-day period from the publication 
of the initiation for all interested parties to raise issues regarding 
product coverage. The Department did not receive any comments from 
interested parties regarding product coverage during the 20-day period 
and subsequently, did not change the scope in the Initiation Notice.

Quantity and Value

    On July 19, 2006, the Department requested quantity and value 
(``Q&V'') information from a total of 106 companies that Petitioners 
identified as potential producers or exporters of PSF from the PRC. 
Also, on July 19, 2006, the Department sent a letter requesting Q&V 
information to the China Bureau of Fair Trade for Imports & Exports 
(``BOFT'') of the Ministry of Commerce (``MOFCOM'') requesting that 
BOFT transmit the letter to all companies who manufacture and export 
subject merchandise to the United States, or produce the subject 
merchandise for the companies who were engaged in exporting the subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POI. For a complete list of 
all parties from which the Department requested Q&V information, see 
Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 
from Michael Holton, Sr. International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9: Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping 
Investigation of Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of 
China, dated September 18, 2006, (``Respondent Selection Memorandum''). 
Between August 8, 2006, and August 21, 2006, the Department received 
Q&V responses from 19 interested parties. The Department did not 
receive any type of communication from BOFT regarding its

[[Page 77374]]

request for Q&V information. See Respondent Selection Memorandum at 1.
    On September 18, 2006, the Department selected Cixi Jiangnan 
Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. (``Cixi Jiangnan''), Far Eastern Industries 
(Shanghai) Ltd. (``Far Eastern'') and Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., 
Ltd. (``Ningbo Dafa'') as mandatory respondents in this investigation. 
See Respondent Selection Memorandum at 4.

Surrogate Country

    On September 28, 2006, the Department determined that India, 
Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries 
comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. See Memorandum 
from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Alex Villanueva, 
Program Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9: Antidumping Investigation 
of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China 
(PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, dated September 28, 
2006.
    On October 5, 2006, the Department requested comments on the 
surrogate country selection from the interested parties in these 
reviews. Petitioners submitted surrogate country comments on October 
27, 2006. Far Eastern submitted surrogate country comments on November 
9, 2006. On November 20, 2006, Petitioners submitted rebuttal surrogate 
country comments. No other interested parties commented on the 
selection of a surrogate country. For a detailed discussion of the 
selection of the surrogate country, see ``Surrogate Country'' section 
below, and the Memorandum to the File through James C. Doyle, Director, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Polyester 
Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a 
Surrogate Country, dated December 15, 2006 (``Surrogate Country 
Memorandum'').

Separate Rates Applications

    Between August 16, 2006, and August 21, 2006, we received separate-
rate applications from seventeen companies, including the mandatory 
respondents: Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa. On September 
13, 2006, and September 14, 2006, we received applications from 
Hangzhou Taifu Textile Fiber Co., Ltd. (``Hangzhou Taifu'') and 
Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co., Ltd., respectively.

Questionnaires

    On September 6, 2006, the Department requested comments from all 
interested parties on proposed product characteristics and model match 
criteria to be used in the designation of control numbers (``CONNUMs'') 
to be assigned to the subject merchandise. The Department received 
comments from Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Springs Global US, Inc. 
(``Springs Global'') and Petitioners. The Department also received 
rebuttal comments from Ningbo Dafa. On September 20, 2006, the 
Department issued its sections A, C, D, and E, questionnaire with 
product characteristics and model match criteria used in the 
designation of CONNUMs and assigned to the merchandise under 
consideration. On November 27, 2006, the Department requested 
supplemental information from Hangzhou Taifu. The Department issued 
supplemental questionnaires to Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, and Ningbo 
Dafa between October and November 2006, and received responses between 
October and December 2006. On December 7 and 8, 2006, Petitioners 
submitted Comments on Cixi Jiangnan's, Far Eastern's and Ningbo Dafa's 
December 4, 2006, supplemental questionnaires responses. On December 
11, 2006, Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa responded to 
Petitioners' comments. The Department was unable to fully consider 
Petitioners' December 7 and 8, 2006, comments and respondents' December 
11, 2006, comments because they were filed less than 10 days before the 
preliminary determination.

Surrogate Value Comments

    On November 9, 2006, Petitioners, Far Eastern, Cixi Jiangnan and 
Ningbo Dafa submitted comments on surrogate information with which to 
value the factors of production in this proceeding. On November 20, 
2006, Petitioners filed rebuttal comments on surrogate information with 
which to value the factors of production in this proceeding. On 
December 4, 2006, Ningbo Dafa submitted additional surrogate value 
comments.

Critical Circumstances

    On September 29, 2006, Petitioners alleged that there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist 
with respect to the antidumping investigation of PSF from the PRC. On 
October 5, 2006, the Department issued questionnaires requesting data 
for monthly exports to the United States from January 2003 through 
September 2006 from Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa, and 
received responses on October. For a detailed discussion, please see 
the ``Critical Circumstances'' section below.

Postponement of Preliminary Determination

    On November 16, 2006, the Department informed Petitioners, Cixi 
Jiangnan, Far Eastern, and Ningbo Dafa of our intent to postpone the 
preliminary determination pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(B)(i) of the 
Act by fifteen days to December 15, 2006. On December 5, 2006, the 
Department published a postponement of the preliminary antidumping duty 
determination on PSF from the PRC. See Notice of Postponement of 
Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 70508 
(December 5, 2006).

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is October 1, 2006, through 
March 31, 2006. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal 
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (June 23, 
2006). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise subject to this proceeding is 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 subject merchandise 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.
    The following products are excluded from the scope: (1) PSF of less 
than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at 
subheading 5503.20.0025 and known to the industry as PSF for spinning 
and generally used in woven and knit applications to produce textile 
and apparel products; (2) PSF of 10 to 18 denier that are cut to 
lengths of 6 to 8 inches and that are generally used in the manufacture 
of carpeting; and (3) low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component fiber with 
an outer, non-polyester sheath that melts at a significantly lower 
temperature than its inner polyester core (classified at HTSUS 
5503.20.0015).
    Certain PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheadings 
5503.20.0045 and

[[Page 77375]]

5503.20.0065. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise under the orders is dispositive.

Non-Market-Economy Country

    For purposes of initiation, Petitioners submitted LTFV analyses for 
the PRC as a non-market economy. See Initiation Notice, 71 FR at 41203. 
The Department considers the PRC to be a NME country. In accordance 
with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign 
country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, (``TRBs'') From the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial 
Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in 
Final Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review: TRBs from the 
People's Republic of China, 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 2003). No party 
has challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME country in this 
investigation. Therefore, we have treated the PRC as an NME country for 
purposes of this preliminary determination.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production valued in a 
surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be 
appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of 
the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall 
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of 
production in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level 
of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the 
surrogate values we have used in this investigation are discussed under 
the normal value section below.
    As detailed in the Surrogate Country Memorandum, the Department has 
preliminarily selected India as the surrogate country on the basis 
that: (1) it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; (2) 
it is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to 733(c)(4) 
of the Act; and (3) we have reliable data from India that we can use to 
value the factors of production. Thus, we have calculated normal value 
using Indian prices when available and appropriate to value Cixi 
Jiangnan's, Far Eastern's and Ningbo Dafa's factors of production. See 
Memorandum to the File from Paul Walker, through Alex Villanueva, 
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, and James C. Doyle, 
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber 
from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the 
Preliminary Determination, dated December 15, 2006 (``Factor Value 
Memorandum'').
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final 
determination in an antidumping investigation, interested parties may 
submit publicly available information to value the factors of 
production within 40 days after the date of publication of the 
preliminary determination.

Affiliations

    Based on the evidence on the record in this investigation and based 
on the evidence presented in Far Eastern's questionnaire responses, we 
preliminarily find that Far Eastern is affiliated with Far Eastern 
Polychem Industries (``FEPI''), WuHan Far Eastern Industrial Trading 
Ltd. (``WHFE''), Alberta & Orient Co., Ltd (Canada) (``A&O''), Yuang 
Ding Investment Co. Ltd. (``YDIC''), Everest Investment (Holding) 
Limited (``EIHL''), Everest Textile Co. Ltd. (``Everest Textile''), Far 
Eastern Industrial (Suzhou) Ltd. (``FEIZ''), Far Eastern Industrial 
(Wuxi) Ltd. (``FEIW'') and Far Eastern Textiles (Taiwan) Ltd.'s 
(``FETL''), in addition to FETL's other related parties, pursuant to 
sections 771(33)(E), (F), and (G) of the Act. Additionally, based on 
the evidence on the record in this investigation and presented in 
Ningbo Dafa's questionnaire responses, we preliminarily find that 
Ningbo Dafa is affiliated with Cixi Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd., 
Ferry Fly Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. and Worthal Limited Partnership 
pursuant to sections 771(33)(E), (F), and (G) of the Act. We 
preliminarily find that it is not necessary to collapse Far Eastern or 
Ningbo Dafa with its affiliates because there is no record evidence 
demonstrating that there is significant potential for manipulation of 
price or production with its affiliates. We note that the Department 
normally considers three criteria for collapsing: (i) the level of 
common ownership; (ii) the extent to which managerial employees or 
board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an 
affiliated firm; and (iii) whether operations are intertwined, such as 
through the sharing of sales information, involvement in production and 
pricing decisions, the sharing of facilities or employees, or 
significant transactions between the affiliated producers. See 19 
C.F.R. Sec. 351.401(f)(2).

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country 
this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Cixi 
Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa, and the Separate-Rate Applicants 
have provided company-specific information to demonstrate that they 
operate independently of de jure and de facto government control, and 
therefore satisfy the standards for the assignment of a separate rate.
    We have considered whether each PRC company that submitted a 
complete application is eligible for a separate rate. The Department's 
separate-rate test is not concerned, in general, with macroeconomic/
border-type controls, e.g., export licenses, quotas, and minimum export 
prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. 
See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 
72255, 72256 (December 31, 1998). The test focuses, rather, on controls 
over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the 
individual firm level. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 62 
FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 
61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the 
subject merchandise under a test arising from the Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), 
as further developed in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 
59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). In

[[Page 77376]]

accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns 
separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the 
absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export 
activities.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    The evidence provided by Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa 
and the Separate-Rate Applicants supports a preliminary finding of de 
jure absence of governmental control based on the following: 1) an 
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual 
exporter's business and export licenses; 2) the applicable legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and 3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
9, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
9: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber 
from the People's Republic of China: Separate Rates Memorandum, dated 
December 15, 2006 (``Separate Rates Memorandum'').

2. Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 
22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of 
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in 
fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates.
    We determine that, for Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa and 
the Separate-Rate Applicants, the evidence on the record supports a 
preliminary finding of de facto absence of governmental control based 
on record statements and supporting documentation showing the 
following: 1) each exporter sets its own export prices independent of 
the government and without the approval of a government authority; 2) 
each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent 
decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses; 3) 
each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and 
other agreements; and 4) each exporter has autonomy from the government 
regarding the selection of management.
    Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this investigation 
by Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa and the Separate-Rate 
Applicants demonstrate an absence of de jure and de facto government 
control with respect to each of the exporter's exports of the 
merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria 
identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. As a result, for the 
purposes of this preliminary determination, we have granted separate 
company-specific rates to Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa. 
Additionally, we have granted the Separate-Rate Applicants a weighted-
average margin for the purposes of this preliminary determination. See 
Separate Rates Memorandum.

The PRC-Wide Entity

    The Department has data that indicates there were more exporters of 
PSF from the PRC than those indicated in the response to our request 
for Q&V information during the POI. See Respondent Selection 
Memorandum. We issued our request for Q&V information to 106 potential 
Chinese exporters of the subject merchandise, in addition to BOFT and 
MOFCOM.\1\ We received only 19 Q&V responses and 3 Q&V responses that 
were improperly filed. See Respondent Selection Memorandum at 1-2. We 
did not receive Q&V responses from most of the companies to which we 
sent our request for Q&V information. See Id. Information on the record 
of this investigation indicates that there are numerous producers/
exporters of PSF in the PRC. Based upon our knowledge of the volume of 
imports of subject merchandise from the PRC, the companies which 
responded to the Q&V questionnaire, the Separate-Rate Applicants, Cixi 
Jiangnan, Far Eastern, and Ningbo Dafa do not account for all imports 
into the United States. Although all exporters were given an 
opportunity to provide Q&V information, not all exporters provided a 
response to the Department's Q&V letter. Further, the Government of the 
PRC did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. Therefore, the 
Department determines preliminarily that there were PRC exporters of 
the subject merchandise during the POI from PRC producers/exporters 
that did not respond to the Department's request for information. We 
have treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide 
entity because they did not qualify for a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a list of companies to which the Department sent its 
request for Q&V information, see Respondent Selection Memorandum at 
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department, 
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the 
Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination.
    Information on the record of this investigation indicates that the 
PRC-wide entity was non-responsive. Certain companies did not respond 
to our request for Q&V information and did not respond to the 
Department's questionnaire. As a result, pursuant to section 
776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find that the use of facts available is 
appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003).
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts

[[Page 77377]]

otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse inference if 
an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with requests for information. See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 
Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the Russian Federation, 
65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000); see also ``Statement of 
Administrative Action,'' accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 
870 (1994) (``SAA''). We find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not 
respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to 
the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds 
that, in selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference 
is appropriate.
    Further, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use 
as adverse facts available (``AFA'') information derived from the 
petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a 
previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the 
record. In selecting a rate for adverse facts available, the Department 
selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the 
purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide 
the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely 
manner.'' See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 
8932 (February 23, 1998). It is the Department's practice to select, as 
AFA, the higher of the (a) highest margin alleged in the petition, or 
(b) the highest calculated rate of any respondent in the investigation. 
See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-
Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's Republic of 
China, 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum, at ``Facts Available.'' In the instant investigation, as 
AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity a margin based on 
information in the petition, because the margin derived from the 
petition is higher than the calculated margins for the selected 
respondents. In this case, we have applied the petition rate of 44.30 
percent.
    Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at its disposal.\2\ The SAA also states that the independent 
sources may include published price lists, official import statistics 
and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties 
during the particular investigation. See SAA at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Secondary information is described in the SAA as 
``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SAA also clarifies that ``corroborate'' means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. See SAA at 870. As noted in Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and 
Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and 
Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), unchanged in Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in 
Part: Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan, 62 FR 
11825 (March 13, 2005), to corroborate secondary information, the 
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and 
relevance of the information used.
    Petitioners' methodology for calculating the export price and 
normal value in the petition is discussed in the initiation notice. See 
Initiation Notice at 41203. To corroborate the AFA margin selected, we 
compared the U.S. price and normal values from the petition to the U.S. 
price and normal values for the respondents. See Memorandum to the File 
through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: 
Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Facts Available Rate for the Preliminary 
Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of PSF and parts 
thereof from the People's Republic of China, dated December 15, 2006, 
(``Corroboration Memorandum''). Accordingly, we find that the rate of 
44.30 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of 
the Act. Consequently, we are applying 44.30 percent as the single 
antidumping rate to the PRC-wide entity. The PRC-wide rate applies to 
all entries of the merchandise under investigation except for entries 
from Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa and the Separate- Rate 
Applicants.

Margin for the Separate Rate Applicants

    The Department received timely and complete separate rates 
applications from the Separate Rates Applicants, who are all exporters 
of PSF from the PRC, which were not selected as mandatory respondents 
in this investigation. Through the evidence in their applications, 
these companies have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate 
rate, as discussed above in the ``Separate Rates'' section and in the 
Separate Rates Memorandum. Consistent with the Department's practice, 
as the separate rate, we have established a weighted-average margin for 
the Separate Rates Applicants based on the rates we calculated for 
Ningbo Dafa, Cixi Jiangnan and Far Eastern, excluding any rates that 
are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on AFA. Companies receiving 
this rate are identified by name in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' 
section of this notice.

Date of Sale

    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that, 
``in identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or foreign 
like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as 
recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the normal 
course of business.'' However, the Secretary may use a date other than 
the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date 
better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes 
the material terms of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i); See also Allied Tube 
and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-1093 
(CIT 2001) (``Allied Tube''). The date of sale is generally the date on 
which the parties agree upon all substantive terms of the sale. This 
normally includes the price, quantity, delivery terms and payment 
terms. In order to simplify the determination of date of sale for both 
the respondent and the Department and in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.401(i), the date of sale will normally be the date of the invoice, 
as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the 
ordinary course of business, unless satisfactory evidence is presented 
that the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale on 
some other date. In other words, the date of the invoice is the 
presumptive date of sale, although this presumption may be overcome. 
For instance, in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan, 61 FR 14067 (March 29, 1996),

[[Page 77378]]

the Department used the date of the purchase order as the date of sale 
because the terms of sale were established at that point.
    After examining the questionnaire responses and the sales 
documentation that Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa placed on 
the record, we preliminarily determine that invoice date is the most 
appropriate date of sale for Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo 
Dafa. In its supplemental section A response, dated November 16, 2006, 
Far Eastern explained that it had incorrectly stated that it did not 
encounter any changes to the material terms of sale from its purchase 
orders. Instead, its original statement should have read that material 
terms of the sale from its commercial invoice had not changed during 
the POI. Additionally, Far Eastern provided several specific examples 
where it did encounter changes to the material terms of sale from its 
purchase orders. These examples included a cancellation of a sale and 
order changes that affected the price, quantity, product types and 
shipping destination.
    Petitioners, however, claim that the purchase order date is the 
most appropriate date of sale because Far Eastern stated that it did 
not encounter any changes with respect to the material terms of the 
sale from its purchase orders in its original section A questionnaire 
response, dated October 12, 2006. Petitioners have requested that the 
Department use the purchase order date because Far Eastern stated that 
the terms of sale did not change after the purchase order was issued.
    In Allied Tube, the Court of International Trade (``CIT'') found 
that a ``party seeking to establish a date of sale other than invoice 
date bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to 'satisfy' the 
Department that a different date better reflects the date on which the 
exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.''' Allied 
Tube 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1092.
    Therefore, for this preliminary determination, the Department finds 
that based on the information on the record, Petitioners have failed to 
rebut the presumption that the invoice date is not the appropriate date 
of sale for Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern or Ningbo Dafa. Each respondent 
has provided various examples of material changes to their purchase 
orders during the POI. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Saccharin From the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 
79054 (December 27, 2005).

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of PSF to the United States by Cixi 
Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa were made at less than fair 
value, we compared the export price (``EP'') to normal value (``NV''), 
as described in the ``U.S. Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of 
this notice. We compared NV to weighted-average EPs in accordance with 
section 777A(d)(1) of the Act.

U.S. Price

Export Price

    For Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa, we based U.S. price 
on EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first 
sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and 
CEP was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We 
calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to the first 
unaffiliated customer in the United States. Where applicable, we 
deducted foreign movement expenses, foreign brokerage and handling 
expenses, and international freight expenses from the starting price 
(gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.
    Where foreign movement or international ocean freight was provided 
by PRC service providers or paid for in Renminbi (``RMB''), we valued 
these services using surrogate values (see ``Factors of Production'' 
section below for further discussion).
    For a complete discussion of specific respondent calculations of 
the U.S. price, see Memorandum to the File from Michael Holton, Senior 
Case Analyst: Program Analysis for the Preliminary Determination of 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from 
the People's Republic of China: Cixi Jiangnan, dated December 15, 2006 
(``Cixi Jiangnan Analysis Memorandum''); Memorandum to the File from 
Michael Holton, Senior Case Analyst: Program Analysis for the 
Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Far 
Eastern, dated December 15, 2006 (``Far Eastern Analysis Memorandum''); 
and Memorandum to The File from Paul Walker, Senior Case Analyst, 
Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's 
Republic of China: Analysis Memo for Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., 
Ltd., dated December 15, 2006 (``Ningbo Dafa Analysis Memorandum'').

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using a factors-of-production methodology if the 
merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit 
the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, 
or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department 
bases NV on the FOP because the presence of government controls on 
various aspects of non-market economies renders price comparisons and 
the calculation of production costs invalid under the Department's 
normal methodologies.
    During the POI, Far Eastern did not have production of all types of 
merchandise for which it had POI sales. Consequently, Far Eastern 
reported in the factors of production database the most closely 
resembling CONNUM produced during the POI for the merchandise that was 
sold, but not produced during the POI. At the Department's request, Far 
Eastern also submitted factors of production information covering the 
six-month period prior to the POI for the merchandise that was sold, 
but not produced during the POI, which included factors of production 
most closely resembling the CONNUM produced during the POI. Therefore, 
the Department has determined to use the additional six-month 
information provided by Far Eastern. See Far Eastern Analysis 
Memorandum.
    In addition, Ningbo Dafa produced subject merchandise in more than 
one facility. Ningbo Dafa has stated that all subject merchandise sales 
to the United States and their respective CONNUMs may be tied to a 
single production facility. The Petitioners have argued that the 
Department should calculate normal value using factors of production 
from all of Ningbo Dafa's production facilities. However, absent record 
information to the contrary, for this preliminary determination, the 
Department has only included the factors of production from this single 
facility in our calculation of normal value. See Ningbo Dafa Analysis 
Memorandum for a more complete explanation. The Department will 
continue to examine this issue for the final determination.

Critical Circumstances

    On September 29, 2006, Petitioners alleged that there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist 
with respect to the antidumping investigation of PSF from the PRC. On 
October 19, 2006, Cixi

[[Page 77379]]

Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa submitted information on their 
exports from January 2003 through September 2006 as requested by the 
Department. In accordance with 19 C.F.R. Sec.  351.206(c)(2)(i), 
because Petitioners submitted critical circumstances allegations more 
than 20 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary 
determination, the Department must issue preliminary critical 
circumstances determinations not later than the date of the preliminary 
determination.
    Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will 
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a history 
of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the 
United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or (ii) the 
person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew 
or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject 
merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be 
material injury by reason of such sales; and (B) there have been 
massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short 
period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides 
that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have 
been ``massive,'' the Department normally will examine: (i) the volume 
and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of 
domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, section 
351.206(h)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that an increase 
in imports of 15 percent during the ``relatively short period'' of time 
may be considered ``massive.'' Section 351.206(i) of the Department's 
regulations defines ``relatively short period'' as normally being the 
period beginning on the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the 
petition is filed) and ending at least three months later. The 
regulations also provide, however, that if the Department finds that 
importers, exporters, or producers had reason to believe, at some time 
prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, 
the Department may consider a period of not less than three months from 
that earlier time.
    In accordance with Section 733(e)(1)(A)(I) of the Act and as 
discussed in the Critical Circumstances Memorandum, the Department 
preliminarily finds that there is a history of dumping and material 
injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States and elsewhere 
of the subject merchandise based on the existence of foreign 
antidumping duty orders of PSF, and the ITC's preliminary determination 
of material injury. See Memorandum to Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary, AD/CVD Operations from James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances (``Critical 
Circumstance Memorandum'').
    For the reasons set forth in the Critical Circumstances Memorandum, 
we find that there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise 
over a relatively short period for Far Eastern, but not for Ningbo 
Dafa, Cixi Jiangnan, the Separate Rates Applicants and the PRC-wide 
entity. See Critical Circumstance Memorandum at Attachment 5-7. We find 
that some importers, exporters, or producers knew or should have known 
an antidumping case was pending on PSF imports from the PRC in March of 
2006 because there is record evidence that many of the Chinese 
producers begin planning the antidumping investigation. Therefore, we 
relied on a period of six months as the period, which is the maximum 
duration for the information we have available at this time, for 
comparison in preliminarily determining whether imports of the subject 
merchandise have been massive.
    Therefore, given the analysis summarized above, and described in 
more detail in the Critical Circumstances Memorandum, we preliminarily 
determine that critical circumstances exist for imports of PSF from 
exist for Far Eastern, but do not exist for imports of PSF from Cixi 
Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa, the Separate-Rates Applicants and 
the PRC-wide entity.
    We will make a final determination concerning critical 
circumstances for all producers/ exporters of subject merchandise from 
the PRC when we make our final dumping determination in this 
investigation, which is currently 75 days after the preliminary 
determination.

Factor Valuation Methodology

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOP data reported by respondents for the POI. To calculate NV, 
we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by 
publicly available surrogate values (except as discussed below). In 
selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, 
and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input 
prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. 
Specifically, we added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate 
freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the 
domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest 
seaport to the factory where appropriate. This adjustment is in 
accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision 
in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 
1997). A detailed description of all surrogate values used for 
respondents can be found in the Factor Value Memorandum and company-
specific analysis memorandum. Additionally, for detailed descriptions 
of all actual values used for market-economy inputs, see the company-
specific analysis memoranda dated December 15, 2006. See Cixi Jiangnan 
Analysis Memorandum; Far Eastern Analysis Memorandum; and Ningbo Dafa 
Analysis Memorandum.
    For this preliminary determination, the Department will use Far 
Eastern's reported market economy price of ethylene glycol from its 
unaffiliated supplier. However, the Department will continue to review 
whether Far Eastern is affiliated with its ethylene glycol supplier. If 
the Department finds that Far Eastern and its ethylene glycol supplier 
are affiliated, the Department will consider whether these purchases 
were made at arms-length in the final determination. See Far Eastern 
Analysis Memorandum.
    For this preliminary determination, in accordance with the 
Department's practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics 
in order to calculate surrogate values for the mandatory respondents' 
material inputs. In selecting the best available information for 
valuing FOP in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the 
Department's practice is to select, to the extent practicable, 
surrogate values which are non-export average values, most 
contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See 
e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned 
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 
42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). The 
record shows that data in the Indian Import Statistics represents 
import data that is

[[Page 77380]]

contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. 
Where we could not obtain publicly available information 
contemporaneous to the POI with which to value factors, we adjusted the 
surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price 
Index (``WPI'') as published in the International Financial Statistics 
of the International Monetary Fund.
    Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate 
values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to 
believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or 
suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand 
may have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these 
countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export 
subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to 
all markets from these countries may be subsidized. See Amended Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Automotive Replacement 
Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 11670 
(March 15, 2002); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's 
Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) (``CTVs from the 
PRC''). We are also directed by the legislative history not to conduct 
a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. 
See H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988). Rather, Congress directed the 
Department to base its decision on information that is available to it 
at the time it makes its determination. Therefore, we have not used 
prices from these countries either in calculating the Indian import-
based surrogate values or in calculating market-economy input values. 
In instances where a market-economy input was obtained solely from 
suppliers located in these countries, we used Indian import-based 
surrogate values to value the input. See Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass 
Windshields From The People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 
12, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 
1.
    For Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, and Ningbo Dafa, certain inputs 
into the production of the merchandise under investigation were 
purchased from market economy suppliers and paid for in market economy 
currencies. For these inputs all purchases were made from a market 
economy supplier and paid in a market economy currency, and the 
Department has therefore used the weighted-average POI price 
experienced by each respondent for these inputs. Therefore, we used the 
individual market economy prices experienced by Cixi Jiangnan, Far 
Eastern, and Ningbo Dafa when the inputs were obtained from a market 
economy, paid for in a market economy currency, and was a significant 
portion of the total purchases of that input.
    The Department used the Indian Import Statistics to value the raw 
material and packing material inputs that Far Eastern, Cixi Jiangnan, 
and Ningbo Dafa used to produce the subject merchandise during the POI, 
except where listed below. Absent adequate information on the record to 
value PSF waste (fiber, ``popcorn'' and lump), for this preliminary 
determination, we are using an average of three Indian HTS numbers, 
5503.20.00, 3915.90.42 and 3915.90.90, which represent values for raw 
PET bottles, finished PSF and plastic scrap, respectively. We note that 
the Department ``need not prove that its methodology was the only way 
or even the best way to calculate surrogate values for factors of 
production, as long as it was a reasonable way.'' See Coalition for the 
Pres. of Am. Brake Drum and Rotor Aftermakret Mfs. v. u.S.s., 23 CIT 
88, 118, 44 F.Supp.2d 229, 258 (1999); Shakeproof Assembly Components 
v. U.S., Slip-Op 06-129 (August 25, 2006). We find that, given the 
information on the record, that averaging HTS numbers 5503.20.00, 
3915.90.42 and 3915.90.90 is the most reasonable way to value PSF 
waste. For a detailed description of PSF waste and all other surrogate 
values used for respondents, see Factor Value Memorandum.
    To value electricity and diesel fuel, the Department used rates 
from Key World Energy Statistics 2003, published by the International 
Energy Agency. Because these data were not contemporaneous to the POI, 
we adjusted for inflation using WPI. See Factor Value Memorandum.
    For natural gas, we applied a surrogate value obtained from the Gas 
Authority of India Ltd. website, a supplier of natural gas in India, 
covering the period January through June 2002. In addition, based on 
the February 1, 2005, article from Chemical Weekly, we note that the 
Petroleum Ministry had been considering raising the price but no action 
was taken. Therefore, consistent with the Department's recent 
determination in Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, 
we took the average of the base and ceiling prices, added the 
transportation charge, and inflated the calculated value using the 
appropriate WPI inflator. See Surrogate Value Memo and Polyvinyl 
Alcohol From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 27991 (May 15, 2006), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
    The Department valued steam following the methodology used in the 
investigation of Certain Tissue Paper Products and Certain Crepe Paper 
Products from the People's Republic of China, but updated the natural 
gas price. See Factor Value Memorandum and Notice of Preliminary 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of 
Final Determination for Certain Tissue Paper Products, 69 FR 56407 
(September 21, 2004), unchanged in the final determination, Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Tissue 
Paper Products from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 7475 
(February 14, 2005).
    For direct, indirect, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported 
on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of 
Selected NME Countries, revised in November 2005, http://
ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. The source of these wage-rate data on 
the Import Administration's web site is the Yearbook of Labour 
Statistics 2002, ILO (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in 
Manufacturing. Because this regression-based wage rate does not 
separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, 
we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of 
labor reported by the respondent. See Factor Value Memorandum.
    Because water is essential to the production process of the subject 
merchandise, the Department considers water to be a direct material 
input, and not as overhead, and valued water with a surrogate value 
according to our practice. See Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe 
Fittings From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October 28, 
2003) and, accompanying Issue and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11. 
Although some suppliers have reported that they obtain water from a 
well, we find that whether the producer pays for water is irrelevant in 
determining whether it should be considered a direct material input. 
Further, there is no evidence on the

[[Page 77381]]

record that the Indian producer of polyester staple fiber from which we 
are obtaining an overhead financial ratio accounts for water as an 
overhead expense. The Department valued water using data from the 
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (www.midcindia.org) 
since it includes a wide range of industrial water tariffs. This source 
provides 386 industrial water rates within the Maharashtra province 
from June 2003: 193 for the ``inside industrial areas'' usage category 
and 193 for the ``outside industrial areas'' usage category. Because 
the value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rate 
for inflation. See Factor Value Memorandum.
    We used Indian transport information in order to value the freight-
in cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the best 
available information for valuing truck freight to be from 
www.infreight.com. This source provides daily rates from six major 
points of origin to five destinations in India during the POI. The 
Department obtained a price quote on the first day of each month of the 
POI from each point of origin to each destination and averaged the data 
accordingly. See Factor Value Memorandum. Consistent with the 
calculation of inland truck freight, the Department used the same 
freight distances used in the calculation of inland truck freight, as 
reported by www.infreight.com to derive a value in Rupees per kilogram 
per kilometer. See Factor Value Memorandum.
    The Department used two sources to calculate a surrogate value for 
domestic brokerage expenses. The Department averaged December 2003-
November 2004 data contained in Essar Steel's February 28, 2005, public 
version response submitted in the AD administrative review of Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India with October 2002-
September 2003 data contained in Pidilite Industries' March 9, 2004, 
public version response submitted in the AD investigation of Carbazole 
Violet Pigment 23 from India (see Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 
69 FR 67306 (November 17, 2004)). The brokerage expense data reported 
by Essar Steel and Pidilite Industries in their public versions is 
ranged data. The Department first derived an average per-unit amount 
from each source. Then the Department adjusted each average rate for 
inflation. Finally, the Department averaged the two per-unit amounts to 
derive an overall average rate for the POI. See Factor Value 
Memorandum.
    To value marine insurance, the Department obtained a price quote 
from http://www.rjgconsultants.com/insurance.html, a market-economy 
provider of marine insurance. See Factor Value Memo Memorandum. To 
value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, 
and profit, we used the audited financial statements from Indo Rama's 
2005/2006 Annual Report and Reliance Industries Ltd.'s 2005/2006 Annual 
Report. See Factor Value Memorandum.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify 
the information upon which we will rely in making our final 
determination.

Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would 
calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible 
for a separate rate in this investigation. See Initiation Notice, 70 FR 
35625, 35629. This change in practice is described in Policy Bulletin 
05.1, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The Policy Bulletin 05.1, 
states:
    ``[lsqb]w[rsqb]hile continuing the practice of assigning separate 
rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will 
now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those 
producers that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the 
exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to 
it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to 
mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate 
rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the 
weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is 
referred to as the application of ``combination rates'' because such 
rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more 
producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply 
only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced 
by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation.'' See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6.

Preliminary Determination

    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

           PSF from the PRC - Weighted-average Dumping Margins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Exporter & Producer             Weighted-Average Deposit Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Co.,                                15.30[percnt]
 Ltd.........................
Far Eastern Industries                                     10.45[percnt]
 (Shanghai) Ltd..............
Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber                                  4.39[percnt]
 Co., Ltd....................
Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber                                9.25[percnt]
 Co., Ltd....................
Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber                                  9.25[percnt]
 Co., Ltd....................
Cixi Waysun Chemical Fiber                                  9.25[percnt]
 Co., Ltd....................
Hangzhou Best Chemical Fibre                                9.25[percnt]
 Co., Ltd....................
Hangzhou Hanbang Chemical                                   9.25[percnt]
 Fibre Co., Ltd.,............
Hangzhou Huachuang Co., Ltd..                               9.25[percnt]
Hangzhou Sanxin Paper Co.,                                  9.25[percnt]
 Ltd.........................
Hangzhou Taifu Textile Fiber                                9.25[percnt]
 Co., Ltd....................
Jiaxang Fuda Chemical Fibre                                 9.25[percnt]
 Factory.....................
Nantong Luolai Chemical Fiber                               9.25[percnt]
 Co. Ltd.....................
Nanyang Textile Co., Ltd.....                               9.25[percnt]
Suzhou PolyFiber Co., Ltd....                               9.25[percnt]
Xiamen Xianglu Fiber Chemical                               9.25[percnt]
 Co..........................
Zhaoqing Tifo New Fiber Co.,                                9.25[percnt]
 Ltd.........................
Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs                                    9.25[percnt]
 Fibre Co., Ltd..............

[[Page 77382]]

 
Zhejiang Waysun Chemical                                    9.25[percnt]
 Fiber Co., Ltd..............
PRC-Wide Rate................                              44.30[percnt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of PSF from the PRC as described in the ``Scope of 
Investigation'' section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption from Ningo Dafa, Cixi Jiangnan, the Separate Rate 
Applicants and the PRC-wide entity on or after the date of publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to require 
a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average 
amount by which the