Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results, 32125-32131 [E9-15964]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 7, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32125-32131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15964]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-905]


Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting the 
first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
polyester staple fiber (``PSF'') from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC'') for the period of review (``POR'') December 26, 2006, through 
May 31, 2008. The Department has preliminarily determined that sales 
have been made below normal value (``NV'') by the respondents. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, 
the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of 
subject merchandise during the POR.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. The Department intends to issue the final results no later 
than 180 days from the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``Act''). 
See ``Extension of the Time Limits for the Final Results'' below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 7, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emeka Chukwudebe or Alexis Polovina 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482 0219 or (202) 
482 3927 respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 1, 2007, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber from the 
PRC. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Polyester Staple 
Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30545 (June 1, 2007) 
(``Order''). On July 30, 2008, the Department published a notice of 
initiation of an administrative review of certain PSF from the PRC 
covering the period December 26, 2006, through May 31, 2008 for 27 
companies.\1\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, and Deferral of 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 44220 (July 30, 2008) (``Initiation 
Notice''). On February 19, 2009, the Department published a notice 
extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results by 120 
days to June 30, 2009. See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the 
People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary 
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 7660 
(February 19, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Those companies are: Far Eastern Industries, Ltd., 
(Shanghai) and Far Eastern Polychem Industries;Ningbo Dafa Chemical 
Fiber Co., Ltd.; Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Cixi Santai 
Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Cixi Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; 
Hangzhou Best Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Hanbang Chemical 
Fibre Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Huachuang Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Sanxin Paper 
Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Taifu Textile Fiber Co., Ltd.; Jiaxang Fuda 
Chemical Fibre Factory; Nantong Loulai Chemical Fiber Co., 
Ltd.;Nanyang Textile Co., Ltd.; Suzhou PolyFiber Co., Ltd.; Xiamen 
Xianglu Chemical Fiber Co.; Zhaoqing Tifo New Fiber Co., Ltd.; 
Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Waysun Chemical 
Fiber Co., Ltd.; Dragon Max Trading Development; Xiake Color 
Spinning Co., Ltd.; Jiangyin Hailun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; 
Hyosung Singapore PTE Ltd.; Jiangyin Changlong Chemical Fiber Co., 
Ltd.; Ma Ha Company, Ltd.; Jiangyin Huahong Chemical Fiber Co., 
Ltd.; Jiangyin Mighty Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; and Huvis Sichuan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respondent Selection

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter or producer of the 
subject merchandise. However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the 
Department discretion to limit its examination to a reasonable number 
of exporters or producers if it is not practicable to examine all 
exporters or producers involved in the review.
    On August 5, 2008, the Department released CBP data for entries of 
the subject merchandise during the POR under administrative protective 
order (``APO'') to all interested parties having an APO as of five days 
of publication of the Initiation Notice, inviting comments regarding 
the CBP data and respondent selection. The Department received comments 
and rebuttal comments between August 14, 2008, and August 22, 2008.
    On October 1, 2008, the Department sent out a quantity and value 
(``Q&V'') questionnaire to all 27 companies for which a review was 
requested because a significant amount of the volume in the CBP data 
was unclear. In the CBP data, the identity of the largest exporter 
could not be publicly identified by any party, including the 
Department. Moreover, it was unclear if companies with the same CBP 
module suffix could be grouped together or whether the CBP module 
suffix was properly used by those companies which were assigned the CBP 
module suffix in the investigation. In addition, parties requested 
numerous adjustments to the CBP data, including but not limited to 
grouping of companies, and corrections to company names. The Department 
received Q&V responses between October 16, 2008, and October 20, 2008, 
from 19 of the 27 companies who received the questionnaire.
    On November 7, 2008, the Department issued its respondent selection 
memorandum after assessing its resources and determining that it could 
reasonably examine two exporters subject to this review. Pursuant to 
section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department selected Ningbo Dafa 
Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. (``Ningbo Dafa'') and Cixi Santai Chemical 
Fiber Co. (``Santai'') as mandatory respondents.\2\ The Department sent 
antidumping duty questionnaires to Ningbo Dafa and Santai on November 
14, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Memorandum to James Dole, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, from Alexis Polovina, International Trade Compliance 
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9; First Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the 
PRC: Selection of Respondents for Individual Review, dated November 
7, 2008 (``Respondent Selection Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ningbo Dafa submitted the Section A Questionnaire Response on 
December 5, 2008, the Section C Questionnaire Response on December 30, 
2008, and the Section D Questionnaire Response on January 9, 2009. 
Santai submitted the Section A Questionnaire Response on December 12, 
2008, and the Sections C and D Questionnaire Responses on January 9, 
2009.
    Petitioners submitted deficiency comments regarding respondents' 
questionnaire responses between December 2008 and May 2009. The 
Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Ningbo Dafa and Santai 
between March 2009 and May 2009 to which both companies responded.

[[Page 32126]]

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data

    On February 13, 2009, the Department sent interested parties a 
letter inviting comments on surrogate country selection and surrogate 
value data.\3\ No parties provided comments with respect to selection 
of a surrogate country. On April 27, 2009, the Department received 
information to value factors of production (``FOP'') from Ningbo Dafa, 
Santai, and Petitioners. On May 11, 2009, Ningbo Dafa and Santai filed 
rebuttal comments. On May 14, 2009, Ningbo Dafa provided additional 
surrogate value information and comments. On May 19, 2009, Petitioners 
filed additional rebuttal comments. All the surrogate values placed on 
the record were obtained from sources in India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See the Department's Letter to All Interested Parties; 
Antidumping Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber 
(``PSF'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''): Surrogate 
Country List, dated February 13, 2009 (``Surrogate Country List'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this order is synthetic staple fibers, 
not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of polyesters 
measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in diameter. This 
merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) to five 
inches (127 mm). The subject merchandise may be coated, usually with a 
silicon or other finish, or not coated. PSF is generally used as 
stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, 
cushions, pillows, and furniture.
    The following products are excluded from the scope: (1) PSF of less 
than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at 
subheading 5503.20.0025 and known to the industry as PSF for spinning 
and generally used in woven and knit applications to produce textile 
and apparel products; (2) PSF of 10 to 18 denier that are cut to 
lengths of 6 to 8 inches and that are generally used in the manufacture 
of carpeting; and (3) low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component fiber with 
an outer, non-polyester sheath that melts at a significantly lower 
temperature than its inner polyester core (classified at HTSUS 
5503.20.0015).
    Certain PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheadings 
5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the merchandise under the orders is dispositive.

Non-Market Economy (``NME'') Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as an NME country. In accordance with section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is 
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority. See, e.g., Brake Rotors from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/
2005 Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New 
Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 2006). None of the parties to 
this proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly, the 
Department calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, 
which applies to NME countries.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department investigates imports from an NME country and 
available information does not permit the Department to determine NV 
pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act, then, pursuant to section 
773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department bases NV on an NME producer's 
FOPs, to the extent possible, in one or more market-economy countries 
that (1) are at a level of economic development comparable to that of 
the NME country, and (2) are significant producers of comparable 
merchandise. The Department determined India, Philippines, Indonesia, 
Colombia, Thailand, and Peru are countries comparable to the PRC in 
terms of economic development.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Surrogate Country List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on publicly available information placed on the record (e.g., 
production data), the Department determines India to be a reliable 
source for surrogate values because India is at a comparable level of 
economic development pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a 
significant producer of subject merchandise, and has publicly available 
and reliable data. Accordingly, the Department has selected India as 
the surrogate country for purposes of valuing the FOPs because it meets 
the Department's criteria for surrogate country selection.

Separate Rates

    In 2005, the Department notified parties of a new application and 
certification process by which exporters and producers may obtain 
separate rate status in an NME review. The process requires exporters 
and producers to submit a separate rate status certification and/or 
application. See also Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005) (``Policy 
Bulletin 05.1''), available at: https://ia.ita.doc.gov. However, the 
standard for eligibility for a separate rate, which is whether a firm 
can demonstrate an absence of both de jure and de facto government 
control over its export activities, has not changed.
    A designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is 
revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act. In 
proceedings involving NME countries, it is the Department's practice to 
begin with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the 
country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a 
single antidumping duty rate. See, e.g., Policy Bulletin 05.1; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and 
Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper 
Products from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 53079, 53082 
(September 8, 2006); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303, 29307 (May 22, 2006) (``Diamond 
Sawblades''). It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of 
merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country this single rate 
unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. See, 
e.g., Diamond Sawblades, 71 FR at 29307. Exporters can demonstrate this 
independence through the absence of both de jure and de facto 
government control over export activities. Id. The Department analyzes 
each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from 
the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 (May 
6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed in Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from 
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 22586-87 (May 2, 1994) 
(``Silicon Carbide''). However, if the Department determines that a 
company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a 
separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is 
independent from government control. See, e.g., Final

[[Page 32127]]

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax 
Candles from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 52355, 52356 
(September 13, 2007).
    In addition to the two mandatory respondents, Ningbo Dafa and 
Santai, the Department received separate rate applications or 
certifications from the following 15 companies (``Separate-Rate 
Applicants''): Far Eastern Industries, Ltd., (Shanghai) and Far Eastern 
Polychem Industries; Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Cixi 
Waysun Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd., Hangzhou Best Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd.; 
Hangzhou Hanbang Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Huachuang Co., 
Ltd.; Hangzhou Sanxin Paper Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Taifu Textile Fiber 
Co., Ltd.; Jiaxang Fuda Chemical Fibre Factory; Nantong Loulai Chemical 
Fiber Co., Ltd.; Nanyang Textile Co., Ltd.; Xiamen Xianglu Chemical 
Fiber Co.; Zhaoqing Tifo New Fiber Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs 
Fibre Co., Ltd.; and Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. However, 
the following 10 companies did not submit either a separate-rate 
application or certification: Dragon Max Trading Development; Xiake 
Color Spinning Co., Ltd.; Jiangyin Hailun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; 
Hyosung Singapore PTE Ltd.; Jiangyin Changlong Chemical Fiber Co., 
Ltd.; Ma Ha Company, Ltd.; Jiangyin Huahong Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; 
Jiangyin Mighty Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Huvis Sichuan; and Suzhou 
PolyFiber Co., Ltd. Therefore, because these companies did not 
demonstrate their eligibility for separate rate status, they have now 
been included as part of the PRC-wide entity.

a. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. The evidence provided by Ningbo Dafa, 
Santai, and the Separate-Rate Applicants supports a preliminary finding 
of de jure absence of government control based on the following: (1) an 
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual 
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) there are applicable 
legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) 
there are formal measures by the government decentralizing control of 
companies. See, e.g., Ningbo Dafa's Separate Rate Certification, dated 
September 4, 2008, at pages 3-4; and Santai's Section A Questionnaire 
Response, dated December 12, 2008, at pages 2-9.

b. Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of 
its export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 
22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of 
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in 
fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates. The evidence provided by 
Ningbo Dafa, Santai, and the Separate-Rate Applicants supports a 
preliminary finding of de facto absence of government control based on 
the following: (1) the companies set their own export prices 
independent of the government and without the approval of a government 
authority; (2) the companies have authority to negotiate and sign 
contracts and other agreements; (3) the companies have autonomy from 
the government in making decisions regarding the selection of 
management; and (4) there is no restriction on any of the companies' 
use of export revenue. See, e.g., Ningbo Dafa's Separate Rate 
Certification, dated December 12, 2008, at pages 5-6 and Santai's 
Section A Questionnaire Response, dated September 5, 2008, at pages 2-
9. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that Ningbo Dafa and 
Santai have established that they qualify for a separate rate under the 
criteria established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.

Separate Rate Calculation

    As stated previously, this administrative review covers 27 
exporters. Of those, the Department selected two exporters, Ningbo Dafa 
and Santai, as mandatory respondents in this review. As stated above, 
10 companies are part of the PRC-Wide entity and thus are not entitled 
to a separate rate.\5\ The remaining 15 companies submitted timely 
information as requested by the Department and thus, the Department has 
preliminarily determined to treat these companies as cooperative 
Separate-Rate Applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Those companies are: Dragon Max Trading Development; Xiake 
Color Spinning Co., Ltd.; Jiangyin Hailun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; 
Hyosung Singapore PTE Ltd.; Jiangyin Changlong Chemical Fiber Co., 
Ltd.; Ma Ha Company, Ltd.; Jiangyin Huahong Chemical Fiber Co., 
Ltd.; Jiangyin Mighty Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Huvis Sichuan; and 
Suzhou PolyFiber Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the 
establishment of a rate to be applied to individual companies not 
selected for examination where the Department limited its examination 
in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. 
Generally we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which 
provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an 
investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents 
we did not examine in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of 
the Act instructs that we are not to calculate an all-others rate using 
any zero or de minimis margins or any margins based entirely on facts 
available. Accordingly, the Department's practice in this regard, in 
reviews involving limited respondent selection based on exporters 
accounting for the largest volumes of trade, has been to average the 
rates for the selected companies, excluding zero and de minimis rates 
and rates based entirely on facts available. See Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results 
and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
73 FR 52273, 52275 (September 9, 2008) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 6 (``Shrimp from Vietnam''). Section 
735(c)(5)(B) of the Act also provides that, where all margins are zero, 
de minimis, or based entirely on facts available, we may use ``any 
reasonable method'' for assigning the rate to non-selected respondents, 
including ``averaging the estimated weighted average dumping margins 
determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.''
    The Department has available in administrative reviews information 
that would not be available in an investigation, namely rates from 
prior

[[Page 32128]]

administrative and new shipper reviews. Accordingly, since the 
determination in the investigation in this proceeding, the Department 
has determined that in cases where we have found dumping margins in 
previous segments of a proceeding, a reasonable method for determining 
the rate for non-selected companies is to use the most recent rate 
calculated for the non-selected company in question, unless we 
calculated in a more recent review a rate for any company that was not 
zero, de minimis or based entirely on facts available. See Shrimp from 
Vietnam at Comment 6; Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, 
Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Review in 
Part, 73 FR 52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008) and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 16; see also Certain Fish Fillets 
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Preliminary Results 
of the New Shipper Review and Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Partial Rescission of the Fourth Administrative Review, 73 
FR 52015 (September 8, 2008) (changed in final results as final 
calculated rate for mandatory respondent was above de minimis, which 
remained unchanged in the amended final results).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews: Certain Frozen Fish 
Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 74 FR 11349 (March 
17, 2009) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 
6; Notice of Amended Final Results of the Fourth Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 74 FR 17816 (April 17, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, all the Separate-Rate Applicants received a separate 
rate in the original investigation. Therefore, for the preliminary 
results, we are assigning all the Separate-Rate Applicants a separate 
rate of 4.44[percnt], which is the separate rate from the original 
investigation. Entities receiving this rate are identified by name in 
the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section of this notice.

Date of Sale

    Ningbo Dafa and Santai reported the invoice date as the date of 
sale because they claim that, for their U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise made during the POR, the material terms of sale were 
established on the invoice date. The Department preliminarily 
determines that the invoice date is the most appropriate date to use as 
Ningbo Dafa's and Santai's date of sale is in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.401(i) and the Department's long-standing practice of determining 
the date of sale.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 
Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004) and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of certain PSF to the United States by 
Ningbo Dafa and Santai were made at less than fair value, the 
Department compared the export price (``EP'') to NV, as described in 
the ``U.S. Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections below.

U.S. Price

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department 
calculated the EP for a portion of sales to the United States for 
Ningbo Dafa and Santai because the first sale to an unaffiliated party 
was made before the date of importation and the use of constructed EP 
(``CEP'') was not otherwise warranted. The Department calculated EP 
based on the price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In 
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, the 
Department deducted from the starting price to unaffiliated purchasers 
foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling. Each of these 
services was either provided by an NME vendor or paid for using an NME 
currency. Thus, the Department based the deduction of these movement 
charges on surrogate values.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using a factors-of-production methodology if the 
merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit 
the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, 
or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department 
bases NV on the FOPs because the presence of government controls on 
various aspects of non-market economies renders price comparisons and 
the calculation of production costs invalid under the Department's 
normal methodologies.

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will 
normally use publicly available information to value the FOPs, but when 
a producer sources an input from a market economy country and pays for 
it in a market economy currency, the Department may value the factor 
using the actual price paid for the input. During the POR, both Ningbo 
Dafa and Santai reported that they purchased certain inputs from a 
market economy supplier and paid for the inputs in a market economy 
currency. See Ningbo Dafa Section D Questionnaire Response, dated 
January 9, 2009, at pages D-5-6 and Exhibit 3; and Santai's Section D 
Questionnaire Response, dated January 9, 2009, at page 5 and Exhibit D-
1-B. The Department has a rebuttable presumption that market economy 
input prices are the best available information for valuing an input 
when the total volume of the input purchased from all market economy 
sources during the period of investigation or review exceeds 33 percent 
of the total volume of the input purchased from all sources during the 
period. See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected 
Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments, 71 
FR 61716, 61717-18 (October 19, 2006) (``Antidumping Methodologies''). 
In these cases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to 
rebut the Department's presumption, the Department will use the 
weighted average market economy purchase price to value the input. 
Alternatively, when the volume of an NME firm's purchases of an input 
from market economy suppliers during the period is below 33 percent of 
its total volume of purchases of the input during the period, but where 
these purchases are otherwise valid and there is no reason to disregard 
the prices, the Department will weight-average the market economy 
purchase price with an appropriate surrogate value according to their 
respective shares of the total volume of purchases, unless case-
specific facts provide adequate grounds to rebut the presumption. See 
Antidumping Methodologies. When a firm has made market economy input 
purchases that may have been dumped or subsidized, are not bona fide, 
or are otherwise not acceptable for use in a dumping calculation, the 
Department will exclude them from the numerator of the ratio to ensure 
a fair determination of whether valid market economy purchases meet the 
33-percent threshold. See Antidumping Methodologies.
    The Department used Indian import data from the World Trade Atlas 
(``WTA Indian import data'') published by Global Trade Information 
Services, Inc., which is sourced from the Directorate General of 
Commercial Intelligence & Statistics, Indian Ministry of Commerce,

[[Page 32129]]

to determine the surrogate values for raw material, steam coal, by-
products, and packing material inputs. The Department has disregarded 
statistics from NMEs, countries with generally available export 
subsidies, and undetermined countries, in calculating the average 
value. For a detailed description of all surrogate values used for 
Ningbo Dafa and Santai, see Memorandum to the File through Alex 
Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9 from Alexis Polovina, Case 
Analyst: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Polyester 
Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''): Surrogate 
Values for the Preliminary Results (``Prelim Surrogate Value Memo'') 
dated June 30, 2009.
    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, for subject 
merchandise produced by Ningbo Dafa and Santai, the Department 
calculated NV based on the FOPs reported by Ningbo Dafa and Santai for 
the POR. The Department used the WTA Indian import data and other 
publicly available Indian sources in order to calculate surrogate 
values for Ningbo Dafa and Santai's FOPs. To calculate NV, the 
Department multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by 
publicly available Indian surrogate values. The Department's practice 
when selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs is to 
select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are product-
specific, representative of a broad market average, publicly available, 
contemporaneous with the POR and exclusive of taxes and duties. See, 
e.g., Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 
48195 (August 18, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 2.
    As appropriate, the Department adjusted input prices by including 
freight costs to render them delivered prices. Specifically, the 
Department added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate freight 
cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic 
supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the 
factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the 
Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408 
(Fed. Cir. 1997). See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
    In those instances where the Department could not obtain publicly 
available information contemporaneous to the POR with which to value 
factors, the Department adjusted the surrogate values using, where 
appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as published in 
the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary 
Fund, a printout of which is attached to the Prelim Surrogate Value 
Memo at Attachment 2. Where necessary, the Department adjusted 
surrogate values for inflation and exchange rates, taxes, and the 
Department converted all applicable items to a per-kilogram basis.
    The Department valued electricity using price data for small, 
medium, and large industries, as published by the Central Electricity 
Authority of the Government of India (``CEA'') in its publication 
titled ``Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average Rates of Electricity 
Supply in India,'' dated July 2006. These electricity rates represent 
actual country-wide, publicly available information on tax-exclusive 
electricity rates charged to industries in India. Since the rates are 
not contemporaneous with the POR, the Department inflated the values 
using the WPI. Parties have suggested that the Department rely on the 
2005 International Energy Agency (``IEA'') data. However, the 
Department preliminarily finds that we cannot rely on those data 
because the 2005 IEA data are less contemporaneous than the July 2006 
CEA data. Therefore, we preliminarily determine to value electricity 
using the CEA price data. See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
    Because water is essential to the production process of the subject 
merchandise, the Department is considering water to be a direct 
material input, and not as overhead, and valued water with a surrogate 
value according to our practice. See Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron 
Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October 
28, 2003) and accompanying Issue and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11. 
The Department valued water using data from the Maharashtra Industrial 
Development Corporation (www.midcindia.org) as it includes a wide range 
of industrial water tariffs. To value water, we used the revised 
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (``MIDC'') water rates 
available at https://www.midcindia.com/water-supply, which we deflated 
using Indian WPI. See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
    For direct, indirect, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(3), the Department used the PRC regression-based wage rate 
as reported on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, 
Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in May 2008; see 
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/; Corrected 2007 Calculation of 
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 73 FR 27795 (May 14, 2008). The 
source of these wage-rate data listed on Import Administration's web 
site is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2005, ILO (Geneva: 2007), 
Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. Because this regression-based wage 
rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or 
types of labor, the Department has applied the same wage rate to all 
skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondents. See Prelim 
Surrogate Value Memo.
    The Department valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit 
average rate calculated from data on the infobanc Web site: https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this 
website contains inland freight truck rates between many large Indian 
cities. Since this value is not contemporaneous with the POR, the 
Department deflated the rate using WPI. See Prelim Surrogate Value 
Memo.
    To value brokerage and handling, the Department calculated a simple 
average of the brokerage and handling costs that were reported in 
public submissions that were filed in three antidumping duty cases. 
Specifically, the Department averaged the public brokerage and handling 
expenses reported by Navneet Publications (India) Ltd. in the 2007-2008 
antidumping duty administrative review of certain lined paper products 
from India, Essar Steel Limited in the 2006-2007 antidumping duty 
administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from 
India, and Himalaya International Ltd. in the 2005-2006 antidumping 
duty administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India. 
The Department inflated the brokerage and handling rate using the 
appropriate WPI inflator. See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
(``SG&A'') expenses, and profit, the Department used the audited 
financial statements of Ganesh Polytex Limited.
    We are preliminarily granting a by-product offset to Ningbo Dafa 
for waste paper and waste bottle hood. We are also preliminarily 
granting a by-product offset to Ningbo Dafa for waste fiber based on 
its production of waste fiber, as opposed to its POR reintroduction of 
waste fiber. Ningbo Dafa stated that when waste fiber is produced it 
enters an inventory-in account and a value is assigned to that 
inventory in their books. Moreover, Ningbo claims that all of the waste 
fiber produced during the POR has been or will be reintroduced. In 
other words, there is no indication

[[Page 32130]]

that any of the waste fiber produced is not ultimately reintroduced 
into the processing stage. Under such a circumstance, the practice of 
using the ``lower of'' the quantity of by-product produced or 
reintroduced in each POR may lead to a biased result over multiple 
review periods. The Department notes that granting the by-product 
offset based on total by-product production during the POR is a 
departure from past NME practice, in which by-product offsets were 
based on its total POR reintroduction of the by-product produced during 
the POR. See, e.g., Notice of Final Antidumping Duty Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: 
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 
FR 37116 (June 23, 2003) and accompanying Issues and Decisions 
Memorandum at Comment 12. However, this change brings our NME practice 
into line with normal accounting principles, which recognizes and 
records the economic value of a by-product when it is produced. We are 
hereby notifying parties of this change in practice for NME cases and 
we invite interested parties to provide comments in their case briefs.
    We are also preliminarily granting a by-product offset to Santai 
for polypropylene (``PP'') waste and polyethylene terephthalate 
(``PET'') waste.

Currency Conversion

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

Preliminary Results of Review

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following 
weighted-average dumping margins exist:

   Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Manufacturer/Exporter          Weighted Average Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co.,                                     0.00
 Ltd...............................
Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber Co......                    0.06 (de minimis)
Far Eastern Polychem Industries....                                 4.44
Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co.,                                   4.44
 Ltd...............................
Cixi Waysun Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd.                                 4.44
Hangzhou Best Chemical Fibre Co.,                                   4.44
 Ltd...............................
Hangzhou Hanbang Chemical Fibre                                     4.44
 Co., Ltd..........................
Hangzhou Huachuang Co., Ltd........                                 4.44
Hangzhou Sanxin Paper Co., Ltd.....                                 4.44
Hangzhou Taifu Textile Fiber Co.,                                   4.44
 Ltd...............................
Jiaxang Fuda Chemical Fibre Factory                                 4.44
Nantong Loulai Chemical Fiber Co.,                                  4.44
 Ltd...............................
Nanyang Textile Co., Ltd...........                                 4.44
Xiamen Xianglu Chemical Fiber Co...                                 4.44
Zhaoqing Tifo New Fiber Co., Ltd...                                 4.44
Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co.,                                 4.44
 Ltd...............................
Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co.,                                 4.44
 Ltd...............................
PRC-Wide Rate......................                                44.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Hearing

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Because, as 
discussed above, the Department intends to seek additional information, 
the Department will establish the briefing schedule at a later time, 
and will notify parties of the schedule in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.309. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 
proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: 1) a statement 
of the issue; 2) a brief summary of the argument; and 3) a table of 
authorities. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d).
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to 
request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a 
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
Room 1117, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Requests should contain: 1) the party's name, address and telephone 
number; 2) the number of participants; and 3) a list of issues to be 
discussed. Id. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those 
raised in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the 
final results of this administrative review, including the results of 
its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 
120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Extension of the Time Limit for the Final Results

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act requires that the Department issue 
the final results of an administrative review within 120 days after the 
date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not 
practicable to complete the review within that time period, section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the deadline 
for the final results to a maximum of 180 days after the date on which 
the preliminary results are published.
    In this proceeding, the Department requires additional time to 
complete the final results of this administrative review to issue 
additional supplemental questionnaires, conduct verifications of 
several producers in addition to the exporters, generate the reports of 
the verification findings, and properly consider the issues raised in 
case briefs from interested parties. Thus, it is not practicable to 
complete this administrative review within the original time limit. 
Consequently, the Department is extending the time limit for completion 
of the final results of this review by 60 days, in accordance with 
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The final results are now due no later 
180 days after the publication date of these preliminary results.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by these reviews. The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15

[[Page 32131]]

days after the publication date of the final results of this review 
excluding any reported sales that entered during the gap period. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated exporter/importer 
(or customer)-specific assessment rates for the merchandise subject to 
this review. Where the respondent has reported reliable entered values, 
we calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by 
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each 
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered 
value of the sales to each importer (or customer). See 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate 
is greater than de minimis, we will apply the assessment rate to the 
entered value of the importers'/customers' entries during the POR. See 
19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    Where we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales, we 
calculated a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the antidumping 
duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and 
dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or 
customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To determine whether the duty 
assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set 
forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer (or customer)-
specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where 
an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is zero or de 
minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without 
regard to antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
    For the companies receiving a separate rate that were not selected 
for individual review, the assessment rate will be based on the rate 
from the investigation or, if appropriate, a simple average of the cash 
deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for individual 
review pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the exporters 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in the final 
results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, 
i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that 
company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC 
exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit 
rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the 
most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise 
which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash 
deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 44.3 percent; and (4) for all 
non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their 
own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC 
exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

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.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: June 30, 2009.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. E9-15964 Filed 7-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S