Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary Results of the 2006/2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 31058-31064 [E8-12100]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 105 (Friday, May 30, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31058-31064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12100]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-580-839


Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary Results of 
the 2006/2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

[[Page 31059]]

is May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007. 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: May 30, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAllister or Brandon 
Farlander, 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) 482-0182, 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, 2007, 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, 
72 FR 23796 (May 1, 2007). On May 31, 2007, 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''); Mijung Industry Co., Ltd. 
(``Mijung''); Estal Industry Co., Ltd. (``Estal''); Keon Baek Co., Ltd. 
(``Keon Baek''); Daehan Synthetic Company, Ltd. (``Daehan''); Sam Young 
Synthetics Co., Ltd. (``Sam Young''); Sunglim Co., Ltd. (``Sunglim''); 
and Daeyang Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Daeyang'').\1\ On May 31, 2007, 
Huvis requested an administrative review. On June 13, 2007, the 
petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review of Keon 
Baek. On June 20, 2007, the petitioners withdrew their request for 
administrative reviews of Mijung, Sam Young, and Sunglim. On June 29, 
2007, the Department published a notice initiating the review with 
respect to Huvis, Saehan, Estal, Daeyang, and Samyang.\2\ See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part and Deferral of Administrative 
Review, 72 FR 35690 (June 29, 2007). The period of review (``POR'') is 
May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007. On July 26, 2007, the petitioners 
withdrew their request for Saehan. Also, on July 26, 2007, we issued 
antidumping questionnaires in this review. On August 29, 2007, we 
received section A responses from Huvis, Daeyang, and Estal. On 
September 14, 2007, we received a response to sections B-D from Huvis 
and sections B-C responses from Daeyang and Estal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners also asked for the Department to request 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection import data, for either direct 
shipments or shipments through Canada or Mexico, under the name 
``Samyang.''
    \2\ While the Department initiated a review of Samyang, we later 
determined that this initiation was in error, and, as noted below, 
on November 1, 2007, we rescinded with respect to Samyang.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 21, 2007, the petitioners withdrew their request for 
reviews of Daeyang and Estal. On September 25, 2007, we issued a 
memorandum to Daeyang and Estal stating that they were not required to 
respond to section D of the questionnaire.
    On November 1, 2007, we rescinded the review with respect to 
Daeyang, Estal, and Samyang. See Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea, 72 FR 
61864 (November 1, 2007).
    On December 28, 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 30, 2008, 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 the Republic of Korea: Notice of Extension of Time 
Limit for the 2006-2007 Administrative Review, 72 FR 73764 (December 
28, 2007).
    On January 8 and 31, 2008, March 27, 2008, and April 18, 2008, we 
issued supplemental questionnaires to Huvis. We received responses to 
these supplemental questionnaires on February 20, 2008, March 6, 2008, 
April 16, 2008, and April 29, 2008, respectively.
    On May 8, 2008, the petitioners submitted factual information 
consisting of excerpts from a company's annual report. On May 19, 2008, 
the Department rejected the petitioners' May 8, 2008, submission 
because it contained new factual information. See Letter to David 
Smith, counsel for the petitioners, ``Petitioners' May 8, 2008 
Comments: Submission of New Information,'' dated May 19, 2008. On May 
20, 2008, the petitioners requested that the Department reconsider and 
allow the petitioners to refile their May 8, 2008, submission, or in 
the alternative, take notice of this information in the preliminary 
results. On May 22, 2008, Huvis submitted comments rebutting the 
petitioners' May 8 and 20, 2008, submissions.
    On May 22, 2008, the Department decided to allow the petitioners to 
refile their May 8, 2008, submission. See Letter to David Smith, 
counsel for the petitioners, ``Petitioners' May 20, 2008 Comments,'' 
dated May 22, 2008. Also, the Department provided all interested 
parties a period of 10 days to rebut petitioners' refiled submission. 
The Department will consider the petitioners' refiled May 8, 2008, 
submission, Huvis's May 22, 2008, submission, and any other rebuttal 
comments to petitioners' refilled submission in its final results. See 
Memorandum to File, ``Reconsideration of Petitioners' May 8, 2008, 
submission,'' dated May 22, 2008.

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

[[Page 31060]]

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.

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.

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 because 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 its U.S. sales, Huvis reported date of shipment as its date of 
sale because it permits U.S. customers to make order changes up to the 
date of shipment. Thus, because the merchandise is always shipped on or 
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 Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Preliminary Intent to Rescind, 72 FR 31279, 31280 (Jun. 6, 2007) 
(unchanged in final results: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: 
Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
72 FR 69663 (Dec. 10, 2007)); see also Certain Cold-Rolled and 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 13170, 13172-
73 (Mar. 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. Huvis 
reported sales to the United States based upon three different types of 
sales terms (i.e., free-on board (``FOB''); cost, insurance, and 
freight (``CIF''); and ex- dock duty paid (``EDDP'')-FOB). We 
calculated EP based on these reported prices 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,

[[Page 31061]]

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''),\3\ including selling functions,\4\ 
class of customer (``customer category''), and the level of selling 
expenses for each type of sale. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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.
    \4\ 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),\5\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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 (Jun. 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 an FOB, CIF, or EDDP-FOB 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 both the home market and to 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 affiliated customers. To 
test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the 
starting prices of sales to affiliated customers to those of sales to 
unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct and 
indirect selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Where the price to 
affiliated parties 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 affiliated parties 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 affiliated parties 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 
could not compel its affiliate 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.

[[Page 31062]]

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 Memorandum 
from Team to File, ``2006/07 Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum 
for Huvis Corporation,'' dated May 23, 2008 (``Huvis Calculation 
Memorandum'').
    Consistent with our finding in the previous administrative review, 
the record of this review establishes that MTA and QTA are 
interchangeable and can be successfully used in place of one another 
using similar quantities. See Huvis's Mar. 6, 2008, supplemental 
questionnaire response at Exhibit D-30; see also Certain Polyester 
Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results of the 2005 2006 Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 69663 (Dec. 10, 2007), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (``Final Results of 2005/06 
Administrative Review'') at Comment 4. In the instant review, due to 
the nature of the affiliation, Huvis claims that it could not compel 
its affiliate 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. 
Because QTA and MTA are interchangeable, we used the market price for 
MTA as a proxy for the market price of QTA for the major input 
analysis.
    Additionally, we increased the affiliated supplier's COP of QTA 
because the supplier's purchase prices for paraxylene (i.e., an input 
into the production of QTA) from an affiliated party were lower than 
the prices it paid to unaffiliated parties.
    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. Accordingly, we increased Huvis' reported transfer 
price of QTA by the percent difference between the reported transfer 
price and the higher of the market price or the affiliate's adjusted 
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. Huvis claims that it could not compel 
its affiliate to provide a market price for this input, as requested in 
the Department's original and supplemental questionnaires. 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 
added the supplier's profit rate, provided by Huvis from the supplier's 
financial statements for the fiscal year ending 2006, to the supplier's 
COP as a reasonable proxy for the missing market price of this input. 
See Final Results of 2005/06 Administrative Review at Comment 5.
    As with QTA, we made an upward adjustment to the supplier's COP 
because the supplier's purchase prices for paraxylene from an 
affiliated party were lower than the prices paid to unaffiliated 
parties.
    Under section 773(f)(2), 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's reported transfer 
price of PTA by the percent difference between the reported transfer 
price and the market price.
    For MTA, 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) Huvis reported interest expenses that were offset by interest 
on deposits for retirement insurance. Consistent with our treatment of 
this income in the prior administrative reviews, we excluded this 
offset because it is not related to interest income incurred on short-
term investments of working capital. See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber 
from Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Preliminary Intent to Rescind, 72 FR 31279 (Jun. 6, 2007) 
(unchanged in final results: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: 
Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
72 FR 69663 (Dec. 10, 2007)); 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 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.

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

[[Page 31063]]

of the same product, as the basis for determining NV, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on the price to affiliated and 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, 2006, through April 30, 2007:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-average
                Exporter/manufacturer                  margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huvis Corporation...................................                3.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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 per-unit 
duty 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 15 days 
after publication of the final results of review.
    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.

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.


[[Page 31064]]


    Dated: May 23, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-12100 Filed 5-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S