Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 40777-40784 [2010-17180]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40777-40784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17180]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-905]


Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, in 
Part, of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting the 
second 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'') June 1, 2008, through May 
31, 2009. The Department has preliminarily determined that sales have 
not been made below normal value (``NV'') with respect to certain 
exporters who participated fully and are entitled to a separate rate in 
this administrative review. If these preliminary results are adopted in 
our final results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific assessment 
rates are above de minimis.

DATES: Effective Date: July 14, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Huang or Steven Hampton, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4047 or (202) 
482-0116, 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 29, 2009, the Department published a notice of 
initiation of an administrative review of certain polyester staple 
fiber from the People's Republic of China covering the period June 1, 
2008, through May 31, 2009, for 27 companies.\1\ See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral 
of Administrative Review, 74 FR 37690 (July 29, 2009) (``Initiation 
Notice''). On February 9, 2010, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice extending the time period for issuing the preliminary 
results by 101 days. 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, 75 FR 6352 
(February 9, 2010). On February 16, 2010, the Department issued a 
memorandum that tolled the deadlines for all Import Administration 
cases by seven calendar days due to the recent Federal Government 
closure. See Memorandum for the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for 
Import Administration, regarding Tolling of Administrative Deadlines as 
a Result of the Government Closure During the Recent Snowstorm, dated 
February 12, 2010. On June 1, 2010, the Department published in the 
Federal Register a second notice extending the time period for issuing 
the preliminary results by 19

[[Page 40778]]

days. See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of 
China: Extension of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 30373 (June 1, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.; Nan 
Yang 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we have preliminarily determined 
that Hangzhou Best Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd. (``Hangzhou Best'') and 
Xiamen Xianglu Chemical Fiber Co. (``Xiamen Xianglu'') made no 
shipments of subject merchandise during the POR of this administrative 
review. The Department received no-shipment certifications from 
Hangzhou Best and Xiamen Xianglu on August 24, 2009, and August 28, 
2009, respectively. The Department also issued no-shipment inquiries to 
CBP in September 2009, asking CBP to provide any information contrary 
to our findings of no entries of subject merchandise for merchandise 
manufactured and shipped by Hangzhou Best and Xiamen Xianglu during the 
POR. We did not receive any response from CBP, thus indicating that 
there were no entries of subject merchandise into the United States 
exported by these companies. Consequently, as neither company made 
exports of subject merchandise during the POR, we are preliminarily 
rescinding the review, in part, with respect to Hangzhou Best and 
Xiamen Xianglu.

Respondent Selection

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``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 July 31, 2009, 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, inviting 
comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection. The 
Department received comments and rebuttal comments on August 10, 2009, 
and August 17, 2009, respectively.
    On September 18, 2009, 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. (``Cixi Santai'') as mandatory respondents.\2\ The 
Department sent antidumping duty questionnaires to Ningbo Dafa and Cixi 
Santai on September 25, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Memorandum to James Dole, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, from Emeka Chukwudebe and Tim Lord, Analysts, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, regarding Second Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the 
PRC: Selection of Respondents for Individual Review, dated September 
18, 2009 (``Respondent Selection Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai submitted the Section A Questionnaire 
Responses on November 2, 2009, the Section C & D Questionnaire 
Responses on November 16, 2009. Petitioners submitted deficiency 
comments regarding respondents' questionnaire responses between January 
and April 2010. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to 
Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai between March 2010 and May 2010 to which 
both companies responded.

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data

    On February 18, 2010, 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 16, 2009, the Department received 
information to value factors of production (``FOP'') from Ningbo Dafa, 
Cixi Santai, and Petitioners. 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 Administrative Review of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber 
(``PSF'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''): Surrogate 
Country List, dated February 18, 2010 (``Surrogate Country List'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this proceeding 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.

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

[[Page 40779]]

    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://www.trade.gov/ia. 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 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 Cixi 
Santai, the Department received separate rate applications or 
certifications from the following 13 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 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.; 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, 
Cixi 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 Section A 
Supplemental Questionnaire Response, dated March 16, 2010, at Exhibit 
1SA-1; and Cixi Santai's Section A Questionnaire Response, dated 
November 2, 2009, at A2-12.

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, Cixi 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

[[Page 40780]]

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 Section A 
Supplemental Questionnaire Response at Exhibit 1SA-1; and Cixi Santai's 
Section A Questionnaire Response at A2-12. Therefore, the Department 
preliminarily finds that Ningbo Dafa and Cixi 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 25 
exporters. Of those, the Department selected two exporters, Ningbo Dafa 
and Cixi 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 13 companies submitted 
timely information as requested by the Department and thus, the 
Department has preliminary 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. 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 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 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%, 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 Cixi 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 Cixi 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 polyester staple fiber to the 
United States by Ningbo Dafa and Cixi 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 the sales to the United States from Ningbo Dafa 
and Cixi 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 FOPs 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

[[Page 40781]]

government controls on various aspects of NMEs 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 (``ME'') country and 
pays for it in a ME currency, the Department may value the factor using 
the actual price paid for the input. During the POR, both Ningbo Dafa 
and Cixi Santai reported that they purchased certain inputs from a ME 
supplier and paid for the inputs in a ME currency. See Ningbo Dafa 
Section D Questionnaire Response, dated November 16, 2009, at D-5-6 and 
Exhibit D-3; and Cixi Santai's Section D Questionnaire Response, dated 
November 16, 2009, at D-5-6 and Exhibit D-2.b. The Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that ME input prices are the best available 
information for valuing an input when the total volume of the input 
purchased from all ME 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 ME purchase price to value the input. Alternatively, 
when the volume of an NME firm's purchases of an input from ME 
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 ME 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 ME 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 
ME purchases meet the 33-percent threshold. See Antidumping 
Methodologies. Cixi Santai reported as ME purchases certain input 
purchases from a NME supplier that were sourced from a ME country. See 
Cixi Santai's Section D Questionnaire Response at Exhibit D-2.b. 
Consistent with the Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.408 (c)(1), 
the Department has preliminarily determined that such purchases from a 
NME supplier, even if the material was originally sourced from a ME 
country, should not be considered as ME purchases for the purposes of 
antidumping margin calculations, given that the sale price for the 
input was set by an NME vendor.
    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, for subject 
merchandise produced by Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai, the Department 
calculated NV based on the FOPs reported by Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai 
for the POR. The Department used Indian import data and other publicly 
available Indian sources in order to calculate surrogate values for 
Ningbo Dafa and Cixi 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 where we relied on an import value. 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). Additionally, 
Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai both reported that they incurred brokerage 
and handling fees and import duties for some or all of their ME input 
purchases. See Ningbo Dafa's Second Section A, C and D Supplemental 
Questionnaire Response, dated May 20, 2010, at 2-3; and Cixi Santai's 
Second Section A, C&D Questionnaire Response, dated May 18, 2010, at 3. 
The Department adjusted the appropriate input prices to include the 
brokerage and handling fees based on a surrogate value. However, the 
Department made no adjustment for the import duties, as NME producers 
are not expected to pay import duties on products used in the 
manufacture of finished goods for export. See Tapered Roller Bearings 
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic 
of China; Final Results of 1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial 
Rescission of Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 66 
FR 1953 (January 10, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 12. Furthermore, these duties are assessed and 
collected by the PRC government, and the Department explained recently 
that the tax payments by NME respondents to NME governments are intra-
NME transfers that do not provide a basis for the Department to adjust 
U.S. price. See Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 75 FR 1592 (January 12, 2010) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
    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 used Indian import data from the Global Trade Atlas 
(``GTA'') published by Global Trade Information Services, Inc. 
(``GTIS''), which is sourced from the Directorate General of Commercial 
Intelligence & Statistics, Indian Ministry of Commerce, to determine 
the surrogate values for certain raw materials, 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. In accordance 
with the OTCA 1988 legislative history, the Department continues to 
apply its long-standing practice of disregarding surrogate values if it 
has a reason to

[[Page 40782]]

believe or suspect the source data may be subsidized.\8\ In this 
regard, the Department has previously found that it is appropriate to 
disregard such prices from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand 
because we have determined that these countries maintain broadly 
available, non-industry specific export subsidies.\9\ Based on the 
existence of these subsidy programs that were generally available to 
all exporters and producers in these countries at the time of the POR, 
the Department finds that it is reasonable to infer that all exporters 
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand may have benefitted 
from these subsidies. For a detailed description of all surrogate 
values used for Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai, see Memorandum to the File 
through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9 from Jerry Huang, 
International Trade 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 July 7, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. Report 
to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. 
(1988) (``OTCA 1988'') at 590.
    \9\ See e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty 
Order on Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, 75 FR 13257 (March 
19, 2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at pages 
4-5; Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia, 70 
FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at page 4; See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from Thailand: Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Determination, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001) and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at page 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In past cases, it has been the Department's practice to value 
various FOPs using import statistics of the primary selected surrogate 
country from World Trade Atlas (``WTA''), as published by GTIS. See 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 
50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009). However, in October 2009, the 
Department learned that Indian import data obtained from the WTA, as 
published by GTIS, began identifying the original reporting currency 
for India as the U.S. Dollar. The Department then contacted GTIS about 
the change in the original reporting currency for India from the Indian 
Rupee to the U.S. Dollar. Officials at GTIS explained that while GTIS 
obtains data on imports into India directly from the Ministry of 
Commerce, Government of India, as denominated and published in Indian 
Rupees, the WTA software is limited with regard to the number of 
significant digits it can manage. Therefore, GTIS made a decision to 
change the original reporting currency for Indian data from the Indian 
Rupee to the U.S. Dollar in order to reduce the loss of significant 
digits when obtaining data through the WTA software. GTIS explained 
that it converts the Indian Rupee to the U.S. Dollar using the monthly 
Federal Reserve exchange rate applicable to the relevant month of the 
data being downloaded and converted. See Certain Oil Country Tubular 
Goods from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances, and Final Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 
(April 19, 2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 4.
    However, the data reported in the GTA software, published by GTIS, 
reports import statistics, such as from India, in the original 
reporting currency and thus this data corresponds to the original 
currency value reported by each country. Additionally, the data 
reported in the GTA software is reported to the nearest digit and thus 
there is not a loss of data by rounding, as there is with the data 
reported by the WTA software. Consequently, the Department will now 
obtain import statistics from GTA for valuing various FOPs because the 
GTA import statistics are in the original reporting currency of the 
country from which the data are obtained and have the same level of 
accuracy as the original data released.
    The Department valued electricity using the updated electricity 
price data for small, medium, and large industries, as published by the 
Central Electricity Authority, an administrative body of the Government 
of India, in its publication titled Electricity Tariff & Duty and 
Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India, dated March 2008. These 
electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly-available 
information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to small, 
medium, and large industries in India. We did not inflate this value 
because utility rates represent current rates, as indicated by the 
effective dates listed for each of the rates provided.
    The Department valued water using data from the Maharashtra 
Industrial Development Corporation (``MIDC'') as it includes a wide 
range of industrial water tariffs. To value water, we used the average 
rate for industrial use from MIDC water rates at https://www.midcindia.org. See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
    For direct, indirect, and packing labor, pursuant to a recent 
decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, we have 
calculated an hourly wage rate to use in valuing each respondent's 
reported labor input by averaging earnings and/or wages in countries 
that are economically comparable to the PRC and that are significant 
producers of comparable merchandise.\10\ Because this 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 2009-1257 at 20 (CAFC 
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
Web site 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.
    The Department valued brokerage and handling using a price list of 
export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in 
India. The price list is compiled based on a survey case study of the 
procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by 
ocean transport in India that is published in Doing Business 2010: 
India, by the World Bank. 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. See Ningbo Dafa's Third Section D Supplemental 
Questionnaire Response, dated May 27, 2010, at 3. Similarly, we are 
preliminarily granting a by-product offset to Cixi Santai for 
polypropylene (``PP'') waste and polyethylene terephthalate (``PET'') 
waste. Cixi Santai stated that it sells at the end of each month the 
scrap generated in the month. See Cixi Santai's Second Section A, C and 
D

[[Page 40783]]

Supplemental Questionnaire Response at 6.

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Weighted average
                Manufacturer/exporter                  margin  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd..................             * 0.02
Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber Co........................             * 0.48
Far Eastern Polychem Industries......................               4.44
Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd................               4.44
Cixi Waysun Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd...................               4.44
Hangzhou Hanbang Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd.............               4.44
Hangzhou Huachuang Co., Ltd..........................               4.44
Hangzhou Sanxin Paper Co., Ltd.......................               4.44
Hangzhou Taifu Textile Fiber Co., Ltd................               4.44
Jiaxang Fuda Chemical Fibre Factory..................               4.44
Nantong Loulai Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd...............               4.44
Nanyang Textile Co., Ltd.............................               4.44
Zhaoqing Tifo New Fiber Co., Ltd.....................               4.44
Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co., Ltd..............               4.44
Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd..............               4.44
PRC-Wide Rate........................................              44.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* De minimis.

    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). In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of this 
administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly available 
information to value the factors of production within 20 days after the 
date of publication of these preliminary results. Interested parties 
must provide the Department with supporting documentation for the 
publicly available information to value each FOP. Additionally, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this 
administrative review, interested parties may submit factual 
information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted 
by an interested party less than ten days before, on, or after, the 
applicable deadline for submission of such factual information. 
However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new 
information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects 
information recently placed on the record. The Department generally 
cannot accept the submission of additional, previously absent-from-the-
record alternative surrogate value information pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, 
in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
    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. Case briefs from interested 
parties may be submitted not later than 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five 
days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case 
briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit 
with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary 
of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) 
and (d).
    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.

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 days after the publication date of the final 
results of this review. 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

[[Page 40784]]

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: July 7, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-17180 Filed 7-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P