Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of the 2007/2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 27281-27286 [E9-13510]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 9, 2009 / Notices
Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan, 67
FR 58 (January 2, 2002). While no single
factor or combination of factors will
necessarily provide a dispositive
indication of a successor–in-interest
relationship, the Department will
generally consider the new company to
be the successor to the previous
company if the new company’s resulting
operation is not materially dissimilar to
that of its predecessor. See Fresh and
Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway;
Final Results of Changed Circumstances
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 64 FR 9979 (March 1, 1999),
and Industrial Phosphoric Acid From
Israel: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Changed Circumstances Review,
59 FR 6944 (February 14, 1994).
Thus, if the evidence demonstrates
that, with respect to the production and
sale of subject merchandise, the new
company operates as the same business
entity as the former company, the
Department will accord the new
company the same antidumping
treatment as its predecessor.
Additionally, in changed–circumstances
reviews where the Department
determines that a successor company is
a successor–in-interest to a predecessor
company that had not been subject to
the order previously, the Department’s
practice is to apply the determination
back to the date of the occurrence that
prompted the changed–circumstances
review. See Certain Carbon Steel Butt–
Weld Pipe Fittings From Thailand: Final
Results of Changed–Circumstances
Antidumping Duty Review, 74 FR 8904
(February 27, 2009), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1; see also Stainless Steel
Wire Rod from Italy: Notice of Final
Results of Changed Circumstances
Antidumping Duty Review, 71 FR
24643, 24644 (April 26, 2006), and
Certain Hot–Rolled Lead and Bismuth
Carbon Steel Products From the United
Kingdom: Final Results of Changed–
Circumstances Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 64 FR 66880, 66881 (November
30, 1999).
We preliminarily determine that SKF
Aeroengine is the successor–in-interest
to SNFA. In its February 6, 2009,
submission, SKF Aeroengine provided
evidence supporting its claim to be the
successor–in-interest to SNFA.
Specifically, SKF Aeroengine submitted
its Managing Director’s declaration that
the September 3, 2007, name change of
the company did not result in changes
in management, production facilities,
product mix, sales channels, supplier
base, or customer base. Moreover, in the
declaration, the Managing Director also
stated that there are no plans to alter
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:45 Jun 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
either the production facilities or
product mix of SKF Aeroengine, there
are no plans to integrate SKF
Aeroengine’s production with that of
either SKF France S.A. or SKF
Aerospace France S.A.S., and that SKF
Aeroengine continues to operate as a
separate and distinct business apart
from the other SKF entities located in
France. According to the declaration,
SKF Aeroengine employs the same
channels of distribution, payment terms,
and delivery modes to serve the same
customer base as SNFA had used. SKF
Aeroengine also submitted an outline of
its senior officers and board of directors
both before and after its name change to
demonstrate that the name change did
not affect its senior management.
Finally, SKF Aeroengine submitted an
outline of the senior officers and boards
of directors of SKF France S.A. and SKF
Aerospace France S.A.S. both before
and after the name change to
demonstrate that the name change did
not result in changes to the senior
management of either SKF France S.A.
or SKF Aerospace France S.A.S.
In summary, SKF Aeroengine has
presented evidence to establish a prima
facie case of its successorship status.
The record indicates that SNFA’s name
change to SKF Aeroengine has not
changed the operations of the company
in a meaningful way. SKF Aeroengine’s
management, production facilities,
supplier relationships, and customer
base are substantially unchanged from
those of SNFA. The record evidence
demonstrates that the new entity
operates essentially in the same manner
as the predecessor company.
Consequently, we preliminarily
determine that SKF Aeroengine should
be assigned the same antidumping–duty
treatment as SNFA.
Public Comment
Case briefs from interested parties
may be submitted not later than 30 days
after the date of publication of this
notice of preliminary results of
changed–circumstances review.
Rebuttal briefs from interested parties,
limited to the issues raised in the case
briefs, may be submitted not later than
five days after the time limit for filing
the case briefs or comments. Parties who
submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in
this proceeding are requested to submit
with each argument a statement of the
issue, a summary of the arguments not
exceeding five pages, and a table of
statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
Interested parties who wish to request
a hearing or to participate in a hearing
if a hearing is requested must submit a
written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27281
within 30 days of the date of publication
of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Such requests should contain the
following information: (1) the party’s
name, address, and telephone number;
(2) the number of participants; (3) a list
of issues to be discussed. Issues raised
in the hearing will be limited to those
discussed in the case briefs. If
requested, any hearing will be held two
days after the scheduled date for
submission of rebuttal briefs.
The Department will publish in the
Federal Register a notice of the final
results of this changed–circumstances
review, including the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any written
briefs or at the hearing if requested.
As indicated in the CCR Initiation,
during the course of this changed–
circumstances review we will not
change any cash–deposit requirements
on entries of merchandise subject to the
antidumping duty order unless a change
is determined to be warranted pursuant
to the final results of this review.
We are issuing and publishing these
preliminary results and notice in
accordance with sections 751(b) and
777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216.
Dated: June 2, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9–13493 Filed 6–8–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–580–839]
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the
Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results
of the 2007/2008 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
is May 1, 2007, through April 30, 2008.
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 (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties. Interested parties
are invited to comment on these
E:\FR\FM\09JNN1.SGM
09JNN1
27282
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 9, 2009 / Notices
preliminary results. We will issue the
final results not later than 120 days from
the date of publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 9, 2009
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shelly Atkinson 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) 482–0116 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 5, 2008, 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, 73
FR 24532 (May 5, 2008). On May 29,
2008, Huvis Corporation (‘‘Huvis’’)
requested an administrative review. On
May 30, 2008, Wellman, Inc.; DAK
Americas LLC; and Invista, S.a.r.L.
(collectively, ‘‘the petitioners’’)
requested an administrative review of
Huvis. On July 1, 2008, the Department
published a notice initiating the review
with respect to Huvis.1 See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests
for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 37409
(July 1, 2008). The period of review
(‘‘POR’’) is May 1, 2007, through April
30, 2008.
On July 17, 2008, we issued the
antidumping questionnaire in this
review. We received responses from
Huvis in August and September 2008. In
November 2008, February, March, and
April 2009, we issued supplemental
questionnaires to Huvis. We received
responses to these supplemental
questionnaires in January, March, April
and May 2009.
On February 4, 2009, the Department
published in the Federal Register an
extension of the time limit for the
1 The petitioners also asked for the Department to
request CBP import data, for either direct shipments
or shipments through Canada or Mexico, under the
name ‘‘Samyang.’’
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:45 Jun 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
completion of the preliminary results of
this review until no later than June 1,
2009, 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: Extension of Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results of the 2007–2008
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 74 FR 6014 (February 4, 2009).
Scope of the Order
For the purposes of the 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 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 5503.20.00.25 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 the 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 the 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.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the
Act, during April 2008, we verified the
sales information provided by Huvis in
Korea using standard verification
procedures, including examination of
relevant sales and financial records, and
selection of original documentation
containing relevant information. The
Department reported its findings on
June 1, 2009. See Memorandum to the
File, ‘‘Verification of the Sales Response
of Huvis Corporation in the
Antidumping Review of Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic
of Korea’’ dated June 1, 2009. This
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
report is on file in the Central Records
Unit in room 1117 of the main
Department building. We plan to verify
Huvis’ submitted cost information in
July 2009.
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
below.
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’’).
E:\FR\FM\09JNN1.SGM
09JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 9, 2009 / Notices
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 and
because the merchandise is always
shipped on or before the date of invoice.
Thus, the material terms of sale are
established on the date of shipment. See
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from
Korea: Preliminary Results of the 2006/
2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 31058, 31060 (May 30,
2008) (‘‘Preliminary Results of 2006/07
Administrative Review’’); unchanged in
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From
Korea: Final Results of the 2006–2007
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 74144 (December 5, 2008)
(‘‘Final Results of 2006/07
Administrative Review’’); 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 (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. Huvis reported sales to the
United States based upon four different
types of sales terms: free–on board
(‘‘FOB’’); cost, insurance, and freight
(‘‘CIF’’); cost and freight (‘‘C&F’’); 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 (including U.S. brokerage and
handling).
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:45 Jun 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 (February 13, 2006), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
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–toLength Carbon Steel Plate From South
Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November
19, 1997) (‘‘CTL Plate’’). In order to
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27283
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’’),2 including selling
functions,3 class of customer (‘‘customer
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),4 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
to be 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 an
LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
Huvis reported a single channel of
distribution and a single LOT in each
market, and has not requested an LOT
adjustment. In the single channel of
distribution for U.S. sales, merchandise
is shipped directly to the customer on
an FOB, CIF, C&F, or EDDP–FOB basis.
For home market sales, merchandise is
delivered to the customer’s location or
sold on an ex–works basis.
2 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.
3 Selling functions associated with a particular
chain of distribution help us to evaluate LOTs 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.
4 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 (December 12, 2005)
E:\FR\FM\09JNN1.SGM
09JNN1
27284
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 9, 2009 / Notices
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. Also, for sales to the United
States, Huvis reported sales to trading
companies. For sales in the home
market and to the United States, Huvis’
selling activities included negotiating
sales terms, receiving and processing
orders, 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 (November 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:45 Jun 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
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) of the
Act, 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.
Under section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act,
where less than 20 percent of a
respondent’s sales of a given product
were at prices less than the COP, we do
not disregard any below–cost sales of
that product because such below–cost
sales were not made in substantial
quantities.
Application of Facts Otherwise
Available
Section 776(a)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department will apply ‘‘facts
otherwise available’’ if the ‘‘necessary
information is not available on the
record.’’ As discussed in the
‘‘Calculation of COP’’ section below,
Huvis could not 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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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. See Memorandum to the
File, ‘‘Cost of Production and
Constructed Value Calculation
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results
Huvis Corporation,’’ dated June 1, 2009.
(1) In performing our analysis under
sections 773(f)(2) and (3) of the Act,
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. 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.
In the instant review, Huvis could not
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.
Consistent with the previous
administrative review, we find no
evidence on the record to overturn our
prior finding that MTA and QTA are
interchangeable and can be successfully
used in place of one another using
similar quantities. See Final Results of
2006/07 Administrative Review at
Comment 10. 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. Accordingly, we increased
Huvis’s reported transfer price of QTA
by the percent difference between the
reported transfer price of QTA and the
higher of the surrogate market price or
the affiliate’s adjusted COP.
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.
For PTA, we find that it is not a major
input because Huvis’ purchases of PTA
do not represent a significant percentage
E:\FR\FM\09JNN1.SGM
09JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 9, 2009 / Notices
of the total COM of merchandise under
review. Under section 773(f)(2) of the
Act, 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.
Huvis could not 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 constructed a price for the missing
market price of this input. This
methodology is consistent with our
calculation for the proxy market price of
PTA in the previous administrative
review. See Final Results of 2006/07
Administrative Review at Comment 10.
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.
(2) We adjusted Huvis’ reported
financial expenses 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 Preliminary
Results of 2006/07 Administrative
Review, 73 FR at 31062; unchanged
in Final Results of 2006/07
Administrative Review.
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 POR average COP
and, thus, the below–cost sales were
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:45 Jun 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 below–cost sales and
used the remaining above–cost sales 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,
2007, through April 30, 2008:
Exporter/manufacturer
Weighted–average
margin percentage
Huvis Corporation .........
1.50
Because we have a cost verification
scheduled for July 2009, case briefs for
this administrative review must be
submitted no later than one week after
the issuance of the cost verification
report. Rebuttal briefs must be filed
within five days after the deadline for
submission of case briefs, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.309(d)(1), and must be limited
to issues raised in the case briefs.
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 two days after the rebuttal briefs
are filed. Issues raised in the hearing
will be limited to those raised in the
case and rebuttal briefs. 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27285
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
E:\FR\FM\09JNN1.SGM
09JNN1
27286
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 9, 2009 / Notices
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:45 Jun 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
We are issuing and publishing these
results in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 1, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9–13510 Filed 6–8–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XP69
Marine Mammals; File No. 14502
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; receipt of application.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
Russell Fielding, Louisiana State
University, Room 227, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, 70803, has applied in due
form for a permit to import samples
from Risso’s (Grampus griseus), spinner
(Stenella longirostris), and spotted
(Stenella frontalis) dolphins and shortfinned pilot whales (Globicephala
macrorhynchus) for the purpose of
scientific research.
DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail
comments must be received on or before
July 9, 2009.
ADDRESSES: The application and related
documents are available for review by
selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public
Comment’’ from the Features box on the
Applications and Permits for Protected
Species (APPS) home page, https://
apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting
File No. 14502 from the list of available
applications.
These documents are also available
upon written request or by appointment
in the following office(s):
Permits, Conservation and Education
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room
13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone
(301)713–2289; fax (301)427–2521; and
Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th
Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, Florida
33701; phone (727)824–5312; fax
(727)824–5309.
Written comments or requests for a
public hearing on this application
should be mailed to the Chief, Permits,
Conservation and Education Division,
F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room
13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those
individuals requesting a hearing should
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
set forth the specific reasons why a
hearing on this particular request would
be appropriate.
Comments may also be submitted by
facsimile at (301)427–2521, provided
the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy
submitted by mail and postmarked no
later than the closing date of the
comment period.
Comments may also be submitted by
e-mail. The mailbox address for
providing e-mail comments is
NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. Include
in the subject line of the e-mail
comment the following document
identifier: File No. 14502.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Skidmore or Kristy Beard,
(301)713–2289.
The
subject permit is requested under the
authority of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act of 1972, as amended
(MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the
regulations governing the taking and
importing of marine mammals (50 CFR
part 216).
The applicant is requesting a
scientific research permit to import
muscle, blubber, and teeth samples from
Risso’s, spinner, and spotted dolphins
and short-finned pilot whales collected
during the legal cetacean hunts of St.
Vincent and the Grenadines. Samples
from up to 100 individuals will be
imported to the NOAA Center for
Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research
in Beaufort, North Carolina, for
contaminant analysis (specifically
methyl-mercury). No animals will be
taken to provide samples for this
research and no marine mammals will
be incidentally harassed. A permit is
requested for three months for the
importation of samples to occur.
In compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial
determination has been made that the
activity proposed is categorically
excluded from the requirement to
prepare an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement.
Concurrent with the publication of
this notice in the Federal Register,
NMFS is forwarding copies of this
application to the Marine Mammal
Commission and its Committee of
Scientific Advisors.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: June 2, 2009.
Tammy C. Adams,
Acting Chief, Permits, Conservation and
Education Division, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E9–13368 Filed 6–8–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
E:\FR\FM\09JNN1.SGM
09JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27281-27286]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13510]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-839]
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea:
Preliminary Results of the 2007/2008 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 is May 1, 2007,
through April 30, 2008. 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 (``CBP'') to assess
antidumping duties. Interested parties are invited to comment on these
[[Page 27282]]
preliminary results. We will issue the final results not later than 120
days from the date of publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 9, 2009
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shelly Atkinson 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) 482-0116
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 5, 2008, 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,
73 FR 24532 (May 5, 2008). On May 29, 2008, Huvis Corporation
(``Huvis'') requested an administrative review. On May 30, 2008,
Wellman, Inc.; DAK Americas LLC; and Invista, S.a.r.L. (collectively,
``the petitioners'') requested an administrative review of Huvis. On
July 1, 2008, the Department published a notice initiating the review
with respect to Huvis.\1\ See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation
in Part, 73 FR 37409 (July 1, 2008). The period of review (``POR'') is
May 1, 2007, through April 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioners also asked for the Department to request CBP
import data, for either direct shipments or shipments through Canada
or Mexico, under the name ``Samyang.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 17, 2008, we issued the antidumping questionnaire in this
review. We received responses from Huvis in August and September 2008.
In November 2008, February, March, and April 2009, we issued
supplemental questionnaires to Huvis. We received responses to these
supplemental questionnaires in January, March, April and May 2009.
On February 4, 2009, 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 June 1, 2009, 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: Extension of Time Limit for
the Preliminary Results of the 2007-2008 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 6014 (February 4, 2009).
Scope of the Order
For the purposes of the 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 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 5503.20.00.25 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 the 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 the 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.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, during April 2008, we
verified the sales information provided by Huvis in Korea using
standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant
sales and financial records, and selection of original documentation
containing relevant information. The Department reported its findings
on June 1, 2009. See Memorandum to the File, ``Verification of the
Sales Response of Huvis Corporation in the Antidumping Review of
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea'' dated June
1, 2009. This report is on file in the Central Records Unit in room
1117 of the main Department building. We plan to verify Huvis'
submitted cost information in July 2009.
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 below.
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'').
[[Page 27283]]
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 and because the merchandise is always shipped on or
before the date of invoice. Thus, the material terms of sale are
established on the date of shipment. See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber
from Korea: Preliminary Results of the 2006/2007 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 31058, 31060 (May 30, 2008) (``Preliminary
Results of 2006/07 Administrative Review''); unchanged in Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea: Final Results of the 2006-2007
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 74144 (December 5, 2008)
(``Final Results of 2006/07 Administrative Review''); 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 (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. Huvis
reported sales to the United States based upon four different types of
sales terms: free-on board (``FOB''); cost, insurance, and freight
(``CIF''); cost and freight (``C&F''); 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 (including U.S. brokerage and
handling).
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
(February 13, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision 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 (November 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''),\2\ including selling functions,\3\ class of customer
(``customer 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),\4\ 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 to be in accordance with this methodology).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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.
\3\ Selling functions associated with a particular chain of
distribution help us to evaluate LOTs 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.
\4\ 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 (December 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 an LOT adjustment under
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
Huvis reported a single channel of distribution and a single LOT in
each market, and has not requested an LOT adjustment. In the single
channel of distribution for U.S. sales, merchandise is shipped directly
to the customer on an FOB, CIF, C&F, or EDDP-FOB basis. For home market
sales, merchandise is delivered to the customer's location or sold on
an ex-works basis.
[[Page 27284]]
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. Also, for sales
to the United States, Huvis reported sales to trading companies. For
sales in the home market and to the United States, Huvis' selling
activities included negotiating sales terms, receiving and processing
orders, 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 (November 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) of the Act, 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.
Under section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent
of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the
COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because
such below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities.
Application of Facts Otherwise Available
Section 776(a)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will
apply ``facts otherwise available'' if the ``necessary information is
not available on the record.'' As discussed in the ``Calculation of
COP'' section below, Huvis could not 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. See Memorandum to the
File, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results Huvis Corporation,'' dated June
1, 2009.
(1) In performing our analysis under sections 773(f)(2) and (3) of
the Act, 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. 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.
In the instant review, Huvis could not 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. Consistent with the previous
administrative review, we find no evidence on the record to overturn
our prior finding that MTA and QTA are interchangeable and can be
successfully used in place of one another using similar quantities. See
Final Results of 2006/07 Administrative Review at Comment 10. 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.
Accordingly, we increased Huvis's reported transfer price of QTA by the
percent difference between the reported transfer price of QTA and the
higher of the surrogate market price or the affiliate's adjusted COP.
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.
For PTA, we find that it is not a major input because Huvis'
purchases of PTA do not represent a significant percentage
[[Page 27285]]
of the total COM of merchandise under review. Under section 773(f)(2)
of the Act, 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. Huvis could not 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 constructed a price for the missing
market price of this input. This methodology is consistent with our
calculation for the proxy market price of PTA in the previous
administrative review. See Final Results of 2006/07 Administrative
Review at Comment 10. 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.
(2) We adjusted Huvis' reported financial expenses 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 Preliminary
Results of 2006/07 Administrative Review, 73 FR at 31062; unchanged in
Final Results of 2006/07 Administrative Review.
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 POR average
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 below-cost sales and used
the remaining above-cost sales 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, 2007, through April 30, 2008:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Exporter/manufacturer margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huvis Corporation................................... 1.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we have a cost verification scheduled for July 2009, case
briefs for this administrative review must be submitted no later than
one week after the issuance of the cost verification report. Rebuttal
briefs must be filed within five days after the deadline for submission
of case briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1), and must be limited
to issues raised in the case briefs. 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 two days after the
rebuttal briefs are filed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited
to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. 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
[[Page 27286]]
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.
Dated: June 1, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-13510 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
