Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Intent to Rescind, 31279-31283 [E7-10907]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Notices
Therefore, in accordance with section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department
is extending the time period for
completion of the preliminary results of
this review by 63 days until September
4, 2007. The final results continue to be
due 120 days after the publication of the
preliminary results.
This notice is published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A)
and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: May 30, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–10904 Filed 6–5–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–580–839]
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from
Korea: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Preliminary Intent to
Rescind
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
is conducting an administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on
certain polyester staple fiber from the
Republic of Korea. The period of review
is May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006.
This review covers imports of certain
polyester staple fiber from one
producer/exporter. We preliminarily
find that sales of the subject
merchandise have been made below
normal value. If these preliminary
results are adopted in our final results,
we will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection to assess antidumping
duties. Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
We will issue the final results not later
than 120 days from the date of
publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew McAllister or Scott Holland,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482–1174 and (202)
482–1279, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
Background
On May 25, 2000, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published an
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:59 Jun 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
antidumping duty order on certain
polyester staple fiber (‘‘PSF’’) from the
Republic of Korea (‘‘Korea’’). See Notice
of Amended Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber From the
Republic of Korea and Antidumping
Duty Orders: Certain Polyester Staple
Fiber From the Republic of Korea and
Taiwan, 65 FR 33807 (May 25, 2000).
On May 1, 2006, the Department
published a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to
Request Administrative Review’’ of this
order. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 71
FR 25565 (May 1, 2006). On May 31,
2006, Wellman, Inc.; Invista, S.a.r.L.;
and DAK Americas, LLC (collectively,
‘‘the petitioners’’) requested
administrative reviews of Huvis
Corporation (‘‘Huvis’’); Saehan
Industries, Inc. (‘‘Saehan’’); Daehan
Synthetic Company, Ltd. (‘‘Daehan’’);
and Dongwoo Industry Company
(‘‘Dongwoo’’). On May 31, 2006, Huvis
requested an administrative review. The
petitioners withdrew their requests for
administrative reviews of Saehan and
Daehan on June 19, 2006, and June 21,
2006, respectively. On July 3, 2006, the
Department published a notice initiating
the review with respect to Huvis and
Dongwoo. See Initiation of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 71 FR 37892, 37900 (July 3,
2006). The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is
May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006.
On July 13, 2006, we issued
antidumping questionnaires in this
review. On August 10, 2006, Dongwoo
responded that it had no shipments of
subject merchandise during the POR.
We received sections A through D
questionnaire responses from Huvis on
August 17, 2006, September 8, 2006,
and September 22, 2006. In November
2006, January 2007, and March 2007, we
issued supplemental questionnaires to
Huvis. We received responses to these
supplemental questionnaires in January
2007, February 2007, and April 2007,
respectively.
On January 16, 2007, the Department
published in the Federal Register an
extension of the time limit for the
completion of the preliminary results of
this review until no later than May 31,
2007, in accordance with section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19 CFR
351.213(h)(2). See Certain Polyester
Staple Fiber from Taiwan and the
Republic of Korea: Notice of Extension
of Time Limit for the 2005–2006
Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 1703
(January 16, 2007).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31279
Scope of the Order
For the purposes of this order, the
product covered is PSF. PSF is defined
as synthetic staple fibers, not carded,
combed or otherwise processed for
spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3
decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in
diameter. This merchandise is cut to
lengths varying from one inch (25 mm)
to five inches (127 mm). The
merchandise subject to this order may
be coated, usually with a silicon or
other finish, or not coated. PSF is
generally used as stuffing in sleeping
bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters,
cushions, pillows, and furniture.
Merchandise of less than 3.3 decitex
(less than 3 denier) currently classifiable
in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at
subheading 5503.20.00.25 is specifically
excluded from this order. Also
specifically excluded from this order are
polyester staple fibers of 10 to 18 denier
that are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches
(fibers used in the manufacture of
carpeting). In addition, low–melt PSF is
excluded from this order. Low–melt PSF
is defined as a bi–component fiber with
an outer sheath that melts at a
significantly lower temperature than its
inner core.
The merchandise subject to this order
is currently classifiable in the HTSUS at
subheadings 5503.20.00.45 and
5503.20.00.65. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise
under the order is dispositive.
Intent to Rescind Administrative
Review
As noted above, Dongwoo stated that
it had no shipments of subject
merchandise during the POR. The
Department confirmed using CBP data
that Dongwoo did not ship subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3), we are preliminarily
rescinding this review with respect to
Dongwoo.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Huvis’ sales of
PSF to the United States were made at
less than normal value (‘‘NV’’), we
compared export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as
described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and
‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.
Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the
Act, we compared the EP of individual
U.S. transactions to the weighted–
average NV of the foreign–like product,
where there were sales made in the
ordinary course of trade, as discussed in
the ‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’
section, below.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
31280
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Notices
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of
the Act, we considered all products
produced and sold by the respondent in
the home market covered by the
description in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’
section, above, to be foreign–like
products for purposes of determining
appropriate product comparisons to
U.S. sales. In accordance with section
773(a)(1) of the Act, in order to
determine whether there was a
sufficient volume of sales in the home
market to serve as a viable basis for
calculating NV, we compared the
respondent’s volume of home market
sales of the foreign–like product to the
volume of its U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise. For further details, see the
‘‘Normal Value’’ section, below.
We compared U.S. sales to monthly
weighted–average prices of
contemporaneous sales made in the
home market. Where there were no
contemporaneous sales of identical
merchandise in the home market, we
compared sales made within the
window period, which extends from
three months prior to the POR until two
months after the POR. See 19 CFR
351.414(e)(2). As directed by section
771(16) of the Act, where there were no
sales of identical merchandise in the
home market made in the ordinary
course of trade to compare to U.S. sales,
we compared U.S. sales to sales of the
most similar foreign–like product made
in the ordinary course of trade. Further,
as provided in section 773(a)(4) of the
Act, where we could not determine NV
because there were no sales of identical
or similar merchandise made in the
ordinary course of trade in the home
market to compare to U.S. sales, we
compared U.S. sales to constructed
value (‘‘CV’’).
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Date of Sale
For its home market sales, Huvis
reported invoice date as its date of sale,
as Huvis permits home market
customers to make order changes up to
that time. Thus, Huvis’ invoices to its
home market customers establish the
material terms of sale.
For one home market sale, consistent
with 19 CFR 351.401(i), we used the tax
invoice date as the date of sale because
it reflected the date on which the
material terms of sale were established.
We made this adjustment because the
tax invoice date preceded both the date
of shipment and the date of invoice. See
Memorandum from Team to the File,
‘‘Preliminary Results Calculation
Memorandum - Huvis Corporation,’’
dated May 31, 2007 (‘‘Huvis Calculation
Memorandum’’).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:59 Jun 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
For its U.S. sales, Huvis reported date
of shipment as its date of sale, as it
permits U.S. customers to make order
changes up to the date of shipment.
Thus, because the merchandise is
always shipped before the date of
invoice and the material terms of sale
are established on the date of shipment,
the date of shipment is the proper date
of sale. See Certain Cold–Rolled and
Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products From Korea: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, 63 FR 13170, 13172–73 (March
18, 1998).
Export Price
For sales to the United States, we
calculated EP in accordance with
section 772(a) of the Act because the
merchandise was sold prior to
importation by the exporter or producer
outside the United States to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States, and because constructed export
price methodology was not otherwise
warranted. We calculated EP based on
the cost, insurance, and freight (‘‘CIF’’);
ex–dock duty paid - free–on-board
(‘‘EDDP–FOB’’); and EDDP - CIF price to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States. Where appropriate, we made
deductions, consistent with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, for the following
movement expenses: loading fees,
inland freight from the plant to port of
exportation, foreign brokerage and
handling, international freight, marine
insurance, and U.S. customs duty.
We increased EP, where appropriate,
for duty drawback in accordance with
section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Huvis
provided documentation demonstrating
that it received duty drawback under
Korea’s individual–rate system. In prior
investigations and administrative
reviews, the Department has examined
Korea’s individual–rate system and
found that the government controls in
place generally satisfy the Department’s
requirements for receiving a duty
drawback adjustment (i.e., that (1) the
rebates received were directly linked to
import duties paid on inputs used in the
manufacture of the subject merchandise,
and (2) there were sufficient imports to
account for the rebates received). See,
e.g., Notice of Final Results of the
Eleventh Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products from the Republic of Korea, 71
FR 7513 (Feb. 13, 2006), and
accompanying Issues and Decisions
Memorandum, at Comment 2. We
examined the documentation submitted
by Huvis in this administrative review
and confirmed that it meets the
Department’s two–prong test
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(mentioned above) for receiving a duty
drawback adjustment. Accordingly, we
are allowing the reported duty drawback
adjustment on Huvis’ U.S. sales.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
To determine whether there was a
sufficient volume of sales of PSF in the
home market to serve as a viable basis
for calculating NV, we compared the
respondent’s home market sales of the
foreign–like product to its volume of
U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a) of the
Act. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)
and (C) of the Act, because the
respondent’s aggregate volume of home
market sales of the foreign–like product
was greater than five percent of its
aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the
subject merchandise, we determined
that the home market was viable for
comparison.
B. Level of Trade
Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act
states that, to the extent practicable, the
Department will calculate NV based on
sales at the same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’)
as the EP. Sales are made at different
LOTs if they are made at different
marketing stages (or their equivalent).
See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial
differences in selling activities are a
necessary, but not sufficient, condition
for determining that there is a difference
in the stages of marketing. Id.; see also
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut–toLength Carbon Steel Plate From South
Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19,
1997) (‘‘CTL Plate’’). In order to
determine whether the comparison
market sales were at different stages in
the marketing process than the U.S.
sales, we reviewed the distribution
system in each market (i.e., the ‘‘chain
of distribution’’),1 including selling
functions,2 class of customer (‘‘customer
1 The marketing process in the United States and
comparison markets begins with the producer and
extends to the sale to the final user or customer.
The chain of distribution between the two may have
many or few links, and the respondent’s sales occur
somewhere along this chain. CTL Plate, 62 FR at
61732. In performing this evaluation, we considered
the narrative responses of the respondent to
properly determine where in the chain of
distribution the sale occurs.
2 Selling functions associated with a particular
chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s)
of trade in a particular market. CTL Plate, 62 FR at
61732. For purposes of these preliminary results,
we have organized the common selling functions
into four major categories: sales process and
marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory
and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty
services.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
category’’), and the level of selling
expenses for each type of sale. Id.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of
the Act, in identifying levels of trade for
EP and comparison market sales (i.e.,
NV based on either home market or
third country prices),3 we consider the
starting prices before any adjustments.
See Micron Tech, Inc. v. United States,
et al., 243 F.3d 1301, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir.
2001) (interpreting Congressional intent,
in accordance with this methodology).
When the Department is unable to
match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign–
like product in the comparison market
at the same LOT as the EP, the
Department may compare the U.S. sales
to sales at a different LOT in the
comparison market. In comparing EP
sales at a different LOT in the
comparison market, where available
data show that the difference in LOT
affects price comparability, we make a
LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
Huvis reported a single channel of
distribution and a single level of trade
in each market, and has not requested
a LOT adjustment. In the single channel
of distribution for U.S. sales,
merchandise is shipped directly to the
customer on a CIF, EDDP–FOB, or
EDDP–CIF basis. For home market sales,
merchandise is delivered to the
customer’s location.
We examined the information
reported by Huvis regarding its
marketing process for making the
reported home market and U.S. sales,
including the type and level of selling
activities performed, and customer
categories. Specifically, we considered
the extent to which the sales process,
freight services, warehouse/inventory
maintenance, and warranty services
varied with respect to the different
customer categories (i.e., distributors
and end users) within each market and
across the markets.
Huvis reported that it made direct
sales to distributors and end users in the
home market and sales to distributors in
the United States. For sales in the home
market and to the United States, Huvis’
selling activities included negotiating
sales terms, receiving and processing
orders, and arranging for freight and
delivery, and preparing shipping
3 Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV
LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we
derive selling, general and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’)
expenses, and profit for CV, where possible. See,
e.g., Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of
Review, 70 FR 32756, 32757 (June 6, 2005)
(unchanged in Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea,
70 FR 73435 (Dec. 12, 2005)).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:59 Jun 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
31281
documents. For each market, Huvis was
available to provide technical advice
upon a customer’s request. For sales in
the home market and to the United
States, Huvis offered no inventory
maintenance services nor advertising,
and it did not handle any warranty
claims during the POR.
Because the selling functions were
similar in both markets, we
preliminarily find that a single LOT
exists in the home market and in the
United States, and that Huvis’ home
market and U.S. sales were made at the
same LOT.
respondent’s sales of a given product are
at prices less than the COP, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C) of
the Act. Further, in accordance with
section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the
Department normally considers sales to
have been made within an extended
period of time when made during a
period of one year. Finally, prices do
not permit recovery of costs within a
reasonable period of time if the per unit
COP at the time of sale is below the
weighted average per unit COP for the
POR, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
C. Sales to Affiliated Customers
Huvis made sales in the home market
to an affiliated customer. To test
whether these sales were made at arm’s
length, we compared the starting prices
of sales to the affiliated customer to
those of unaffiliated customers, net of
all movement charges, direct and
indirect selling expenses, discounts, and
packing. Where the price to the
affiliated party was, on average, within
a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price
of the same or comparable merchandise
to the unaffiliated parties, we
determined that the sales made to the
affiliated party were at arm’s length. See
Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated
Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of
Trade, 67 FR 69186 (Nov. 15, 2002). In
accordance with the Department’s
practice, we included in our margin
analysis only sales to an affiliated party
that were made at arm’s length.
Application of Facts Otherwise
Available
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that
the Department will apply ‘‘facts
otherwise available’’ if, inter alia,
necessary information is not available
on the record or an interested party: (1)
withholds information that has been
requested by the Department; (2) fails to
provide such information within the
deadlines established, or in the form or
manner requested by the Department,
subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of
section 782 of the act; (3) significantly
impedes a proceeding; or (4) provides
such information, but the information
cannot be verified.
As discussed in the ‘‘Calculation of
COP’’ section below, Huvis failed to
provide market prices for purified
terephthalic acid (‘‘PTA’’) and qualified
terephthalic acid (‘‘QTA’’) as requested
by the Department. Therefore, under
section 776(a) of the Act, use of facts
otherwise available is warranted in
determining the market price for PTA
and QTA.
D. Cost of Production Analysis
In the most recently completed
administrative review, we had
disregarded some sales by Huvis
because they were made at prices below
the cost of production (‘‘COP’’). Under
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act,
previously disregarded below–cost sales
provide reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that the respondent made sales
of the subject merchandise in its
comparison market at prices below the
COP within the meaning of section
773(b) of the Act. Whenever the
Department has this reason to believe or
suspect sales were made below the COP,
we are directed by section 773(b) of the
Act to determine whether, in fact, there
were below–cost sales.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(1), we
disregard sales from our calculation of
NV that were made at less than the COP
if they were made in substantial
quantities over an extended period of
time at prices that would not permit
recovery of costs within a reasonable
period. We find that the below–cost
sales represent ‘‘substantial quantities,’’
when 20 percent or more of the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1. Calculation of COP
We calculated the COP on a product–
specific basis, based on the sum of the
respondent’s costs of materials and
fabrication for the merchandise under
review, plus amounts for SG&A
expenses, financial expenses, and the
costs of all expenses incidental to
placing the foreign–like product packed
and in a condition ready for shipment,
in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of
the Act.
We relied on COP information
submitted in Huvis’ cost questionnaire
responses except for the following
adjustments.
(1)We adjusted Huvis’ reported cost of
manufacturing (‘‘COM’’) to account
for purchases of PTA, modified
terephthalic acid (‘‘MTA’’), and
QTA from affiliated parties at non–
arm’s–length prices. See Huvis
Calculation Memorandum.
Consistent with our finding in the
previous administrative review, the
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
31282
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Notices
record of this review does not support
interchangeability for MTA and QTA
because they contain different impurity
levels and there is no evidence to
indicate that the same input amounts of
MTA or QTA were required to produce
a specific PSF product. See Huvis
Calculation Memorandum; see also
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from
Korea: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 58581
(Oct. 4, 2006), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum (‘‘Final
Results of 2004/05 Administrative
Review’’) at Comment 1. In the instant
review, Huvis failed to provide a market
price for QTA, as requested in the
Department’s original and supplemental
questionnaires. Therefore, in accordance
with sections 773(f)(3) and 776(a) of the
Act, we have relied on facts available to
make a determination of market value.
We added the supplier’s profit rate,
which we calculated from the supplier’s
financial statements for the fiscal year
ending 2005, to the supplier’s COP as a
reasonable proxy for the missing market
price of this input. Under section
773(f)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.407(b), the Department will
determine the value of a major input
from an affiliated person based on the
higher of the transfer price, the market
price, or the affiliate’s COP. We adjusted
Huvis’ reported transfer price of QTA by
the percent difference between the
reported transfer price and the higher of
market price or affiliate’s COP.
For PTA, we find that it is not a major
input because Huvis’ purchases of PTA
do not represent a significant percentage
of the total COM of merchandise under
review. However, Huvis also failed to
provide a market price for this input.
Therefore, in accordance with sections
773(f)(2) and 776(a) of the Act, we have
relied on facts available to make a
determination of market value. We
applied the same methodology used for
QTA to calculate a proxy market price
for PTA. Under section 773(f)(2), the the
Department may disregard transactions
if the transfer price of an input does not
fairly reflect the amount usually
reflected for sales of that input. Because
the market price of PTA exceeded the
transfer price, we adjusted Huvis’
reported transfer price of PTA by the
percent difference between the reported
transfer price and the market price.
For MTA, similar to QTA, we
determined the value of this major input
based on the higher of the transfer price,
the market price, or the affiliate’s COP.
We adjusted Huvis’ reported transfer
price of MTA by the percent difference
between the reported transfer price and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:59 Jun 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
the higher of market price or affiliate’s
COP.
(2) For Huvis’ affiliated supplier of
QTA and PTA, we adjusted the
reported combined SG&A and
financial expenses ratio to properly
calculate each ratio separately and
set the negative ratio to zero. We
added these expenses to COM. See
Huvis Calculation Memorandum.
(3) For Huvis and its affiliated
supplier of MTA, the interest
expenses were offset by interest on
deposits for retirement insurance.
Consistent with our treatment of
this income in the previous
administrative review, we excluded
this offset because it is not related
to interest income incurred on
short–term investments of working
capital. See Final Results of 2004/
05 Administrative Review at
Comment 4; Stainless Steel Sheet
and Strip in Coils from Mexico:
Final Results of the Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
3677 (Jan. 26, 2005), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum (‘‘SSSSC from
Mexico’’) at Comment 11; see also
Huvis Calculation Memorandum.
(4) For Huvis’ affiliated supplier of
MTA, we excluded an offset for
long–term interest income from its
SG&A and financial expenses for
the same reason as that stated
above. See SSSSC from Mexico at
Comment 11; see also Huvis
Calculation Memorandum.
(5) In its SG&A ratio, Huvis excluded
the depreciation cost of idle assets
because it stated that the cost was
not related to the production or sale
of subject merchandise. Consistent
with our treatment of these
expenses in the previous
administrative review, we have
included the depreciation costs
because idle assets are considered
an overhead burden and
appropriately part of SG&A
expenses. See Final Results of 2004/
05 Administrative Review at
Comment 3. Further, it is not
relevant that the idle assets did not
produce merchandise under review
because these idle assets were
related to the general operations of
the company as a whole. Id.; see
also Huvis Calculation
Memorandum.
2. Test of Home Market Prices
On a product–specific basis, we
compared the adjusted weighted–
average COP figures for the POR to the
home market sales of the foreign–like
product, as required under section
773(b) of the Act, to determine whether
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
these sales were made at prices below
the COP. According to our practice, the
prices were exclusive of any applicable
movement charges and indirect selling
expenses. In determining whether to
disregard home market sales made at
prices less than their COP, we
examined, in accordance with sections
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether
such sales were made (1) within an
extended period of time in substantial
quantities, and (2) at prices which
permitted the recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time.
3. Results of COP Test
We found that, for certain products,
more than 20 percent of the
respondent’s home market sales were at
prices less than the COP and, thus, the
below–cost sales were made within an
extended period of time in substantial
quantities. In addition, these sales were
made at prices that did not permit the
recovery of costs within a reasonable
period of time. Therefore, we excluded
these sales and used the remaining sales
of the same product, as the basis for
determining NV, in accordance with
section 773(b)(1).
E. Calculation of Normal Value Based
on Home Market Prices
We calculated NV based on the price
to unaffiliated customers. We made
adjustments for differences in packing
in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A)
and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. We also
made adjustments, where appropriate,
consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii)
of the Act, for loading fees and for
inland freight from the plant to the
customer. In addition, we made
adjustments for differences in
circumstances of sale (‘‘COS’’), in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We
made COS adjustments, where
appropriate, by deducting direct selling
expenses incurred on home market sales
(i.e., credit expenses and bank charges)
and adding U.S. direct selling expenses
(i.e., credit expenses and bank charges).
See 19 CFR 351.410(c).
Preliminary Results of the Review
We find that the following dumping
margin exists for the period May 1,
2005, through April 30, 2006:
Exporter/manufacturer
Huvis Corporation .........
Weighted–average
margin percentage
2.51
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any
interested party may request a hearing
within 30 days of publication of this
notice. Any hearing, if requested, will
be held 42 days after the publication of
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Notices
this notice, or the first workday
thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing
will be limited to those raised in the
case and rebuttal briefs. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may
submit case briefs within 30 days of the
date of publication of this notice.
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited
to issues raised in the case briefs, may
be filed not later than 35 days after the
date of publication of this notice. See 19
CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit
case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this
proceeding are requested to submit with
each argument (1) a statement of the
issue and (2) a brief summary of the
argument with an electronic version
included.
The Department will issue the final
results of this administrative review,
including the results of its analysis of
issues raised in any such written briefs
or hearing, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results.
See section 751(a)(3) of the Act.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of the
administrative review, the Department
shall determine, and CBP shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries.
Huvis submitted evidence
demonstrating that it was the importer
of record for certain of its POR sales. We
examined the customs entry
documentation submitted by Huvis and
tied it to the U.S. sales listing. We noted
that Huvis was indeed the importer of
record for certain sales. Therefore, for
purposes of calculating the importer–
specific assessment rates, we have
treated Huvis as the importer of record
for certain POR shipments. Pursuant to
19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales where
Huvis is the importer of record, Huvis
submitted the reported entered value of
the U.S. sales and we have calculated
importer–specific assessment rates
based on the ratio of the total amount of
antidumping duties calculated for the
examined sales to the total entered
value of those sales.
Regarding sales where Huvis was not
the importer of record, we note that
Huvis did not report the entered value
for the U.S. sales in question.
Accordingly, we have calculated
importer–specific assessment rates for
the merchandise in question by
aggregating the dumping margins
calculated for all U.S. sales to each
importer and dividing this amount by
the total quantity of those sales. To
determine whether the duty assessment
rates were de minimis, in accordance
with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer–
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:59 Jun 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
specific ad valorem ratios based on the
estimated entered value.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we
will instruct CBP to liquidate without
regard to antidumping duties any
entries for which the assessment rate is
de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent).
The Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to CBP.
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This
clarification will apply to entries of
subject merchandise during the POR
produced by companies included in
these preliminary results for which the
reviewed companies did not know their
merchandise was destined for the
United States. In such instances, we will
instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed
entries at the all–others rate if there is
no rate for the intermediate
company(ies) involved in the
transaction. Id.
If the Department rescinds this review
with respect to Dongwoo, and in the
event any entries were made during the
POR through intermediaries under the
CBP case number for Dongwoo, the
Department will instruct CBP to
liquidate such entries at the all–others
rate in effect on the date of entry,
consistent with the May 6, 2003
clarification discussed above.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements
will be effective upon completion of the
final results of this administrative
review for all shipments of PSF from
Korea entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
the publication date of the final results
of this administrative review, as
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1) the cash deposit rate for the
reviewed company will be the rate
established in the final results of this
administrative review (except no cash
deposit will be required if its weighted–
average margin is de minimis, i.e., less
than 0.50 percent); (2) for merchandise
exported by manufacturers or exporters
not covered in this review but covered
in the original less–than–fair–value
investigation or a previous review, the
cash deposit rate will continue to be the
most recent rate published in the final
determination or final results for which
the manufacturer or exporter received
an individual rate; (3) if the exporter is
not a firm covered in this review, the
previous review, or the original
investigation, but the manufacturer is,
the cash deposit rate will be the rate
established for the most recent period
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31283
for the manufacturer of the
merchandise; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm
covered in this or any previous reviews,
the cash deposit rate will be 7.91
percent, the all- others rate established
in Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from
the Republic of Korea: Notice of
Amended Final Determination and
Amended Order Pursuant to Final Court
Decision, 68 FR 74552 (December 24,
2003).
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these
results in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 30, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–10907 Filed 6–5–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–583–833]
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from
Taiwan: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
is conducting an administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on
certain polyester staple fiber from
Taiwan. The period of review is May 1,
2005, through April 30, 2006. This
review covers imports of certain
polyester staple fiber from one
producer/exporter. We have
preliminarily found that sales of the
subject merchandise have not been
made below normal value. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to
liquidate without regard to antidumping
duties. Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31279-31283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-10907]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-839]
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Intent to
Rescind
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber
from the Republic of Korea. The period of review is May 1, 2005,
through April 30, 2006. This review covers imports of certain polyester
staple fiber from one producer/exporter. We preliminarily find that
sales of the subject merchandise have been made below normal value. If
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping
duties. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from
the date of publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAllister or Scott Holland,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1174
and (202) 482-1279, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 25, 2000, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
published an antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber
(``PSF'') from the Republic of Korea (``Korea''). See Notice of Amended
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester
Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Antidumping Duty Orders:
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan,
65 FR 33807 (May 25, 2000). On May 1, 2006, the Department published a
notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' of this
order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review,
71 FR 25565 (May 1, 2006). On May 31, 2006, Wellman, Inc.; Invista,
S.a.r.L.; and DAK Americas, LLC (collectively, ``the petitioners'')
requested administrative reviews of Huvis Corporation (``Huvis'');
Saehan Industries, Inc. (``Saehan''); Daehan Synthetic Company, Ltd.
(``Daehan''); and Dongwoo Industry Company (``Dongwoo''). On May 31,
2006, Huvis requested an administrative review. The petitioners
withdrew their requests for administrative reviews of Saehan and Daehan
on June 19, 2006, and June 21, 2006, respectively. On July 3, 2006, the
Department published a notice initiating the review with respect to
Huvis and Dongwoo. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 37892, 37900 (July 3, 2006). The
period of review (``POR'') is May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006.
On July 13, 2006, we issued antidumping questionnaires in this
review. On August 10, 2006, Dongwoo responded that it had no shipments
of subject merchandise during the POR. We received sections A through D
questionnaire responses from Huvis on August 17, 2006, September 8,
2006, and September 22, 2006. In November 2006, January 2007, and March
2007, we issued supplemental questionnaires to Huvis. We received
responses to these supplemental questionnaires in January 2007,
February 2007, and April 2007, respectively.
On January 16, 2007, the Department published in the Federal
Register an extension of the time limit for the completion of the
preliminary results of this review until no later than May 31, 2007, in
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). See Certain Polyester
Staple Fiber from Taiwan and the Republic of Korea: Notice of Extension
of Time Limit for the 2005-2006 Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 1703
(January 16, 2007).
Scope of the Order
For the purposes of this order, the product covered is PSF. PSF is
defined as synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise
processed for spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier,
inclusive) or more in diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths
varying from one inch (25 mm) to five inches (127 mm). The merchandise
subject to this order may be coated, usually with a silicon or other
finish, or not coated. PSF is generally used as stuffing in sleeping
bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and
furniture. Merchandise of less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier)
currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTSUS'') at subheading 5503.20.00.25 is specifically excluded
from this order. Also specifically excluded from this order are
polyester staple fibers of 10 to 18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6
to 8 inches (fibers used in the manufacture of carpeting). In addition,
low-melt PSF is excluded from this order. Low-melt PSF is defined as a
bi-component fiber with an outer sheath that melts at a significantly
lower temperature than its inner core.
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in
the HTSUS at subheadings 5503.20.00.45 and 5503.20.00.65. Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the merchandise under the order is
dispositive.
Intent to Rescind Administrative Review
As noted above, Dongwoo stated that it had no shipments of subject
merchandise during the POR. The Department confirmed using CBP data
that Dongwoo did not ship subject merchandise to the United States
during the POR. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are
preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to Dongwoo.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Huvis' sales of PSF to the United States were
made at less than normal value (``NV''), we compared export price
(``EP'') to NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal
Value'' sections of this notice.
Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EP of
individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign-
like product, where there were sales made in the ordinary course of
trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section,
below.
[[Page 31280]]
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
products produced and sold by the respondent in the home market covered
by the description in the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above, to be
foreign-like products for purposes of determining appropriate product
comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the
Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV,
we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the
foreign-like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise. For further details, see the ``Normal Value'' section,
below.
We compared U.S. sales to monthly weighted-average prices of
contemporaneous sales made in the home market. Where there were no
contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise in the home market, we
compared sales made within the window period, which extends from three
months prior to the POR until two months after the POR. See 19 CFR
351.414(e)(2). As directed by section 771(16) of the Act, where there
were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the
ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S.
sales to sales of the most similar foreign-like product made in the
ordinary course of trade. Further, as provided in section 773(a)(4) of
the Act, where we could not determine NV because there were no sales of
identical or similar merchandise made in the ordinary course of trade
in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to
constructed value (``CV'').
Date of Sale
For its home market sales, Huvis reported invoice date as its date
of sale, as Huvis permits home market customers to make order changes
up to that time. Thus, Huvis' invoices to its home market customers
establish the material terms of sale.
For one home market sale, consistent with 19 CFR 351.401(i), we
used the tax invoice date as the date of sale because it reflected the
date on which the material terms of sale were established. We made this
adjustment because the tax invoice date preceded both the date of
shipment and the date of invoice. See Memorandum from Team to the File,
``Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum - Huvis Corporation,''
dated May 31, 2007 (``Huvis Calculation Memorandum'').
For its U.S. sales, Huvis reported date of shipment as its date of
sale, as it permits U.S. customers to make order changes up to the date
of shipment. Thus, because the merchandise is always shipped before the
date of invoice and the material terms of sale are established on the
date of shipment, the date of shipment is the proper date of sale. See
Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
From Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews,
63 FR 13170, 13172-73 (March 18, 1998).
Export Price
For sales to the United States, we calculated EP in accordance with
section 772(a) of the Act because the merchandise was sold prior to
importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because
constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We
calculated EP based on the cost, insurance, and freight (``CIF''); ex-
dock duty paid - free-on-board (``EDDP-FOB''); and EDDP - CIF price to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we
made deductions, consistent with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, for
the following movement expenses: loading fees, inland freight from the
plant to port of exportation, foreign brokerage and handling,
international freight, marine insurance, and U.S. customs duty.
We increased EP, where appropriate, for duty drawback in accordance
with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Huvis provided documentation
demonstrating that it received duty drawback under Korea's individual-
rate system. In prior investigations and administrative reviews, the
Department has examined Korea's individual-rate system and found that
the government controls in place generally satisfy the Department's
requirements for receiving a duty drawback adjustment (i.e., that (1)
the rebates received were directly linked to import duties paid on
inputs used in the manufacture of the subject merchandise, and (2)
there were sufficient imports to account for the rebates received).
See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of the Eleventh Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Corrosion-Resistant
Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 7513 (Feb.
13, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum, at Comment
2. We examined the documentation submitted by Huvis in this
administrative review and confirmed that it meets the Department's two-
prong test (mentioned above) for receiving a duty drawback adjustment.
Accordingly, we are allowing the reported duty drawback adjustment on
Huvis' U.S. sales.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of PSF
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we
compared the respondent's home market sales of the foreign-like product
to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance
with section 773(a) of the Act. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and
(C) of the Act, because the respondent's aggregate volume of home
market sales of the foreign-like product was greater than five percent
of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we
determined that the home market was viable for comparison.
B. Level of Trade
Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the
same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP. Sales are made at different
LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.;
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62
FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19, 1997) (``CTL Plate''). In order to determine
whether the comparison market sales were at different stages in the
marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution
system in each market (i.e., the ``chain of distribution''),\1\
including selling functions,\2\ class of customer (``customer
[[Page 31281]]
category''), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The marketing process in the United States and comparison
markets begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the
final user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two
may have many or few links, and the respondent's sales occur
somewhere along this chain. CTL Plate, 62 FR at 61732. In performing
this evaluation, we considered the narrative responses of the
respondent to properly determine where in the chain of distribution
the sale occurs.
\2\ Selling functions associated with a particular chain of
distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a
particular market. CTL Plate, 62 FR at 61732. For purposes of these
preliminary results, we have organized the common selling functions
into four major categories: sales process and marketing support,
freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality
assurance/warranty services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying
levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on
either home market or third country prices),\3\ we consider the
starting prices before any adjustments. See Micron Tech, Inc. v. United
States, et al., 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (interpreting
Congressional intent, in accordance with this methodology).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling, general and
administrative (``SG&A'') expenses, and profit for CV, where
possible. See, e.g., Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Partial Rescission of Review, 70 FR 32756, 32757 (June 6, 2005)
(unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the
Republic of Korea, 70 FR 73435 (Dec. 12, 2005)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the
foreign-like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the
EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sales to sales at a different
LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales at a different LOT
in the comparison market, where available data show that the difference
in LOT affects price comparability, we make a LOT adjustment under
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
Huvis reported a single channel of distribution and a single level
of trade in each market, and has not requested a LOT adjustment. In the
single channel of distribution for U.S. sales, merchandise is shipped
directly to the customer on a CIF, EDDP-FOB, or EDDP-CIF basis. For
home market sales, merchandise is delivered to the customer's location.
We examined the information reported by Huvis regarding its
marketing process for making the reported home market and U.S. sales,
including the type and level of selling activities performed, and
customer categories. Specifically, we considered the extent to which
the sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory maintenance,
and warranty services varied with respect to the different customer
categories (i.e., distributors and end users) within each market and
across the markets.
Huvis reported that it made direct sales to distributors and end
users in the home market and sales to distributors in the United
States. For sales in the home market and to the United States, Huvis'
selling activities included negotiating sales terms, receiving and
processing orders, and arranging for freight and delivery, and
preparing shipping documents. For each market, Huvis was available to
provide technical advice upon a customer's request. For sales in the
home market and to the United States, Huvis offered no inventory
maintenance services nor advertising, and it did not handle any
warranty claims during the POR.
Because the selling functions were similar in both markets, we
preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in the home market and in
the United States, and that Huvis' home market and U.S. sales were made
at the same LOT.
C. Sales to Affiliated Customers
Huvis made sales in the home market to an affiliated customer. To
test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the
starting prices of sales to the affiliated customer to those of
unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct and
indirect selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Where the price to
the affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102
percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise to the
unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the
affiliated party were at arm's length. See Antidumping Proceedings:
Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186
(Nov. 15, 2002). In accordance with the Department's practice, we
included in our margin analysis only sales to an affiliated party that
were made at arm's length.
D. Cost of Production Analysis
In the most recently completed administrative review, we had
disregarded some sales by Huvis because they were made at prices below
the cost of production (``COP''). Under section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Act, previously disregarded below-cost sales provide reasonable grounds
to believe or suspect that the respondent made sales of the subject
merchandise in its comparison market at prices below the COP within the
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. Whenever the Department has this
reason to believe or suspect sales were made below the COP, we are
directed by section 773(b) of the Act to determine whether, in fact,
there were below-cost sales.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(1), we disregard sales from our
calculation of NV that were made at less than the COP if they were made
in substantial quantities over an extended period of time at prices
that would not permit recovery of costs within a reasonable period. We
find that the below-cost sales represent ``substantial quantities,''
when 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product
are at prices less than the COP, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department normally considers sales to
have been made within an extended period of time when made during a
period of one year. Finally, prices do not permit recovery of costs
within a reasonable period of time if the per unit COP at the time of
sale is below the weighted average per unit COP for the POR, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
Application of Facts Otherwise Available
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply
``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary information is
not available on the record or an interested party: (1) withholds
information that has been requested by the Department; (2) fails to
provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the
form or manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections
(c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the act; (3) significantly impedes a
proceeding; or (4) provides such information, but the information
cannot be verified.
As discussed in the ``Calculation of COP'' section below, Huvis
failed to provide market prices for purified terephthalic acid
(``PTA'') and qualified terephthalic acid (``QTA'') as requested by the
Department. Therefore, under section 776(a) of the Act, use of facts
otherwise available is warranted in determining the market price for
PTA and QTA.
1. Calculation of COP
We calculated the COP on a product-specific basis, based on the sum
of the respondent's costs of materials and fabrication for the
merchandise under review, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, financial
expenses, and the costs of all expenses incidental to placing the
foreign-like product packed and in a condition ready for shipment, in
accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.
We relied on COP information submitted in Huvis' cost questionnaire
responses except for the following adjustments.
(1)We adjusted Huvis' reported cost of manufacturing (``COM'') to
account for purchases of PTA, modified terephthalic acid (``MTA''), and
QTA from affiliated parties at non-arm's-length prices. See Huvis
Calculation Memorandum.
Consistent with our finding in the previous administrative review,
the
[[Page 31282]]
record of this review does not support interchangeability for MTA and
QTA because they contain different impurity levels and there is no
evidence to indicate that the same input amounts of MTA or QTA were
required to produce a specific PSF product. See Huvis Calculation
Memorandum; see also Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 58581 (Oct.
4, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (``Final
Results of 2004/05 Administrative Review'') at Comment 1. In the
instant review, Huvis failed to provide a market price for QTA, as
requested in the Department's original and supplemental questionnaires.
Therefore, in accordance with sections 773(f)(3) and 776(a) of the Act,
we have relied on facts available to make a determination of market
value. We added the supplier's profit rate, which we calculated from
the supplier's financial statements for the fiscal year ending 2005, to
the supplier's COP as a reasonable proxy for the missing market price
of this input. Under section 773(f)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.407(b), the Department will determine the value of a major input
from an affiliated person based on the higher of the transfer price,
the market price, or the affiliate's COP. We adjusted Huvis' reported
transfer price of QTA by the percent difference between the reported
transfer price and the higher of market price or affiliate's COP.
For PTA, we find that it is not a major input because Huvis'
purchases of PTA do not represent a significant percentage of the total
COM of merchandise under review. However, Huvis also failed to provide
a market price for this input. Therefore, in accordance with sections
773(f)(2) and 776(a) of the Act, we have relied on facts available to
make a determination of market value. We applied the same methodology
used for QTA to calculate a proxy market price for PTA. Under section
773(f)(2), the the Department may disregard transactions if the
transfer price of an input does not fairly reflect the amount usually
reflected for sales of that input. Because the market price of PTA
exceeded the transfer price, we adjusted Huvis' reported transfer price
of PTA by the percent difference between the reported transfer price
and the market price.
For MTA, similar to QTA, we determined the value of this major
input based on the higher of the transfer price, the market price, or
the affiliate's COP. We adjusted Huvis' reported transfer price of MTA
by the percent difference between the reported transfer price and the
higher of market price or affiliate's COP.
(2) For Huvis' affiliated supplier of QTA and PTA, we adjusted the
reported combined SG&A and financial expenses ratio to properly
calculate each ratio separately and set the negative ratio to zero. We
added these expenses to COM. See Huvis Calculation Memorandum.
(3) For Huvis and its affiliated supplier of MTA, the interest
expenses were offset by interest on deposits for retirement insurance.
Consistent with our treatment of this income in the previous
administrative review, we excluded this offset because it is not
related to interest income incurred on short-term investments of
working capital. See Final Results of 2004/05 Administrative Review at
Comment 4; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico: Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 3677 (Jan.
26, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (``SSSSC
from Mexico'') at Comment 11; see also Huvis Calculation Memorandum.
(4) For Huvis' affiliated supplier of MTA, we excluded an offset
for long-term interest income from its SG&A and financial expenses for
the same reason as that stated above. See SSSSC from Mexico at Comment
11; see also Huvis Calculation Memorandum.
(5) In its SG&A ratio, Huvis excluded the depreciation cost of idle
assets because it stated that the cost was not related to the
production or sale of subject merchandise. Consistent with our
treatment of these expenses in the previous administrative review, we
have included the depreciation costs because idle assets are considered
an overhead burden and appropriately part of SG&A expenses. See Final
Results of 2004/05 Administrative Review at Comment 3. Further, it is
not relevant that the idle assets did not produce merchandise under
review because these idle assets were related to the general operations
of the company as a whole. Id.; see also Huvis Calculation Memorandum.
2. Test of Home Market Prices
On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP figures for the POR to the home market sales of the
foreign-like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to
determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP.
According to our practice, the prices were exclusive of any applicable
movement charges and indirect selling expenses. In determining whether
to disregard home market sales made at prices less than their COP, we
examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act,
whether such sales were made (1) within an extended period of time in
substantial quantities, and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery
of all costs within a reasonable period of time.
3. Results of COP Test
We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of the
respondent's home market sales were at prices less than the COP and,
thus, the below-cost sales were made within an extended period of time
in substantial quantities. In addition, these sales were made at prices
that did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of
time. Therefore, we excluded these sales and used the remaining sales
of the same product, as the basis for determining NV, in accordance
with section 773(b)(1).
E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices
We calculated NV based on the price to unaffiliated customers. We
made adjustments for differences in packing in accordance with sections
773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. We also made adjustments,
where appropriate, consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act,
for loading fees and for inland freight from the plant to the customer.
In addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of
sale (``COS''), in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments, where appropriate, by
deducting direct selling expenses incurred on home market sales (i.e.,
credit expenses and bank charges) and adding U.S. direct selling
expenses (i.e., credit expenses and bank charges). See 19 CFR
351.410(c).
Preliminary Results of the Review
We find that the following dumping margin exists for the period May
1, 2005, through April 30, 2006:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Exporter/manufacturer margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huvis Corporation................................... 2.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 42 days after the publication of
[[Page 31283]]
this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Issues raised in the
hearing will be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal
briefs. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit
case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit
case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to
submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief
summary of the argument with an electronic version included.
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any
such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results. See section 751(a)(3) of the Act.
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries.
Huvis submitted evidence demonstrating that it was the importer of
record for certain of its POR sales. We examined the customs entry
documentation submitted by Huvis and tied it to the U.S. sales listing.
We noted that Huvis was indeed the importer of record for certain
sales. Therefore, for purposes of calculating the importer-specific
assessment rates, we have treated Huvis as the importer of record for
certain POR shipments. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales
where Huvis is the importer of record, Huvis submitted the reported
entered value of the U.S. sales and we have calculated importer-
specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total
entered value of those sales.
Regarding sales where Huvis was not the importer of record, we note
that Huvis did not report the entered value for the U.S. sales in
question. Accordingly, we have calculated importer-specific assessment
rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping
margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing
this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether
the duty assessment rates were de minimis, in accordance with the
requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-
specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the
POR produced by companies included in these preliminary results for
which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was
destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP
to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no
rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. Id.
If the Department rescinds this review with respect to Dongwoo, and
in the event any entries were made during the POR through
intermediaries under the CBP case number for Dongwoo, the Department
will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate in
effect on the date of entry, consistent with the May 6, 2003
clarification discussed above.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of PSF from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of
this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the
Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the
rate established in the final results of this administrative review
(except no cash deposit will be required if its weighted-average margin
is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.50 percent); (2) for merchandise
exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but
covered in the original less-than-fair-value investigation or a
previous review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the most
recent rate published in the final determination or final results for
which the manufacturer or exporter received an individual rate; (3) if
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, the previous review,
or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period
for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous
reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 7.91 percent, the all- others
rate established in Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of
Korea: Notice of Amended Final Determination and Amended Order Pursuant
to Final Court Decision, 68 FR 74552 (December 24, 2003).
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 30, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-10907 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S