Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review., 6136-6139 [E9-2398]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 23 (Thursday, February 5, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6136-6139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2398]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-833]


Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Preliminary Results 
of 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 Taiwan. The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2007 through April 
30, 2008. This review covers imports of certain polyester staple fiber 
from one producer/exporter. We have preliminarily found 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 (CBP) to assess antidumping duties 
on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment 
on these preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in this 
review are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of 
the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. We will issue the 
final results not later than 120 days after the date of publication of 
this notice.

[[Page 6137]]


DATES: Effective Date: February 5, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer or Richard Rimlinger, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
0410 and (202) 482-4477, respectively.

Background

    On July 1, 2008, the Department published a notice initiating an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
polyester staple fiber (PSF) from Taiwan covering the respondents Far 
Eastern Textiles Ltd. (FET) and Nan Ya Plastics Corporation (Nan Ya). 
See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 37409 (July 1, 
2008). We have rescinded the review with respect to Nan Ya. See 
Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Notice of Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 51274 (September 2, 
2008).

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by the order 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 the 
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 5503.20.00.20 is specifically excluded from the order. Also 
specifically excluded from the 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 subject to the order is 
dispositive.

Fair-Value Comparisons

    To determine whether FET's 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 Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), we compared the EP of individual U.S. transactions 
to the monthly 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'' section below.

Product Comparisons

    We compared U.S. sales to monthly weighted-average prices of 
contemporaneous sales made in the home market. We found contemporaneous 
sales of identical merchandise in the home market for all U.S. sales in 
accordance with section 771(16) of the Act.

Date of Sale

    We normally use the invoice date as the date of sale except in 
situations in which we find that a different date better reflects the 
date on which the producer or exporter establishes the material terms 
of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i).
    In its questionnaire responses, FET reported date of shipment as 
the date of sale for its home-market and U.S. sales. FET stated that it 
permits home-market and U.S. customers to make order changes up to the 
date of shipment. According to FET's descriptions, the sales processes 
in the home market and the United States are identical. See FET's 
August 6, 2008, response at pages A-14 through A-17. Thus, record 
evidence demonstrates that the material terms of sale are not set 
before the date of invoice, which would normally result in use of the 
date of invoice as the date of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i).
    Because the merchandise is always shipped on or before the date of 
invoice, we have used the date of shipment as the date of sale. See, 
e.g., Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 31283 (June 6, 2007) 
(unchanged in final, 72 FR 69193, December 7, 2007), and 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) 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: Inland freight from the plant to the 
port of exportation, brokerage and handling, harbor service fees, trade 
promotion fees, containerization expenses, international freight, and 
marine insurance. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Normal Value

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 volume of 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 
section 773(a)(1)(B) 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 purposes.

Cost of Production

    We disregarded below-cost sales by FET in the last administrative 
review of the order completed prior to the initiation of this review. 
See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 69193, 69194 (December 7, 
2007). Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, 
there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that the respondent 
made sales of the foreign like product in its comparison market at 
prices below the cost of production (COP) within the meaning of section 
773(b) of the Act.\*\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \*\ We also disregarded below-cost sales by FET in the most 
recently completed administrative review of the order. See Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 62477, 62478 (October 21, 2008).

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

[[Page 6138]]

    We calculated the COP on a product-specific basis, based on the sum 
of the respondent's costs of materials and fabrication for the foreign 
like product plus amounts for general and administrative (G&A) 
expenses, interest expenses, and the costs of all expenses incidental 
to preparing the foreign like product for shipment in accordance with 
section 773(b)(3) of the Act.
    We relied on COP information FET submitted in its response to our 
cost questionnaire except we adjusted FET's reported cost of 
manufacturing to account for purchases of purified terephthalic acid 
and monoethylene glycol from affiliated parties at non-arm's-length 
prices in accordance with the major-input rule pursuant to section 
773(f)(3) of the Act.
    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. The prices were 
exclusive of any applicable movement charges, packing expenses, 
warranties, and indirect selling expenses. In determining whether to 
disregard home-market sales made at prices below their COP, we 
examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D) of the 
Act, whether such sales were made within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities and at prices which permitted the recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time.
    We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of the 
respondent's home-market sales were at prices below the COP and, in 
addition, 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 disregarded these sales and used the 
remaining sales of the same product as the basis for determining NV in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

Calculation of Normal Value

    We calculated NV based on the price FET reported for home-market 
sales to unaffiliated customers which we determined were within the 
ordinary course of trade. We made adjustments for differences in 
domestic and export packing expenses in accordance with sections 
773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. We also made adjustments, 
consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, for inland-freight 
expenses from the plant to the customer and expenses associated with 
loading the merchandise onto the truck to be shipped. 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., imputed 
credit expenses and warranties) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses 
(i.e., imputed credit expenses and bank charges).
    In addition, FET reported two transactions in its home-market sales 
database which it acknowledged it had reason to know would be exported 
to the People's Republic of China. See FET's November 13, 2008, 
response to our supplemental questionnaire at SE-8. Because FET knew or 
had reason to know at the time of sale that these transactions were 
destined for export, we removed them from our calculations of NV in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act.

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 as the EP. Sales are made at different levels of 
trade 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. See 
19 CFR 351.412(c)(2); 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 (November 19, 1997).
    In order to determine whether a respondent made comparison-market 
sales at stages in the marketing process which differ from those of the 
U.S. sales, we review the distribution system in each market (i.e., the 
chain of distribution), including selling functions, class of customer 
(customer category), and the level of selling expenses incurred for 
each type of sale. The marketing process in the U.S. 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. In performing this evaluation, we consider the narrative 
responses of the respondent to determine where in the chain of 
distribution the sale appears to occur. Selling functions associated 
with a particular chain of distribution help us to evaluate the 
level(s) of trade in a particular market. 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), we consider the starting prices before any 
adjustments. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, et al., 243 
F.3d 1301, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming 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 level of 
trade as the EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a 
different level of trade in the comparison market. In comparing EP 
sales at a different level of trade in the comparison market, where 
available data show that the difference in level of trade affects price 
comparability, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    FET reported that it sold to a single customer in the United 
States. Because there was only one U.S. customer, the necessary 
condition for finding that different levels of trade exist was not met. 
Accordingly, we determined that all of FET's U.S. sales constituted a 
single level of trade.
    FET reported a single channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales 
to end-users) and a single level of trade in the home market. Because 
the sales process and selling functions FET performed for selling to 
home-market customers did not vary by individual customers, we 
determined that all of FET's home-market sales constituted a single 
level of trade.
    Finally, because there is only one home-market level of trade, it 
is not possible to calculate a level-of-trade adjustment. In addition, 
because all U.S. sales were EP sales, no offset contemplated for 
constructed EP sales is appropriate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a 
dumping margin of 1.97 percent exists for FET for the period May 1, 
2007, through April 30, 2008.

Public Comment

    We will disclose the documents resulting from our analysis to 
parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of 
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If a hearing is requested, the 
Department

[[Page 6139]]

will notify interested parties of the hearing schedule.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results of this review. 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. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 
review 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.
    We intend to issue the final results of this review, including the 
results of our analysis of issues raised in any submitted written 
comments, within 120 days after publication of this notice.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Although FET indicated that it was 
not the importer of record for any of its sales to the United States 
during the POR, it reported the name of the importer of record for all 
of its U.S. sales. Because FET reported the entered value for all of 
its U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have 
calculated an importer-specific assessment rate for the merchandise in 
question by aggregating the dumping margins we calculated for all U.S. 
sales to the importer and dividing this amount by the total entered 
value of those sales. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days 
after publication of the final results of this 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) (Assessment 
Clarification). This clarification will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR produced by FET for which it did not know 
its 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. For a full discussion of this clarification, see 
Assessment Clarification.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for 
all shipments of PSF from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by 
section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rate for FET will be 
the rate established in the final results of this administrative 
review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not 
covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the 
proceeding, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter 
is not a firm covered in this review, a prior 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 review, the cash-deposit rate will be 7.31 
percent, the all-others rate established in 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).

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of 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: January 28, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-2398 Filed 2-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P