Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 22366-22369 [2011-9716]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22366-22369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9716]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-833]


Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
polyester staple fiber (PSF) from Taiwan. The period of review is May 
1, 2009, through April 30, 2010. This review covers imports of certain 
PSF from one producer/exporter. We have preliminarily found that sales 
of the subject merchandise have been made below normal value. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties 
on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment 
on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results not later 
than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: April 21, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael A. Romani or Richard 
Rimlinger, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-0198 or (202) 482-4477, respectively.

Background

    On June 30, 2010, the Department published a notice initiating an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain PSF from 
Taiwan covering the respondents Far Eastern Textiles Ltd. (aka & dba 
Far Eastern New Century Corporation) and Nan Ya Plastics Corporation 
(Nan Ya). See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 37759 
(June 30, 2010). We have rescinded the review in part with respect to 
Nan Ya. See Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, 75 FR 51442 (August 20, 
2010).
    On July 8, 2010, the Department published a notice determining that 
Far Eastern New Century Corporation (FENC) was the successor-in-
interest to Far Eastern Textiles Limited. See

[[Page 22367]]

Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Final Results of Changed-
Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 39208 (July 
8, 2010).
    On January 31, 2011, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department extended the 
due date for the preliminary results by an additional 74 days from the 
original due date of January 31, 2011, to April 15, 2011. See Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Extension of Time Limit for 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 
5331 (January 31, 2011).

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by the order is PSF. PSF is defined as 
synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for 
spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or 
more in diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one 
inch (25 mm) to five inches (127 mm). The merchandise subject to the 
order may be coated, usually with a silicon or other finish, or not 
coated. PSF is generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, 
ski jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and furniture. Merchandise 
of less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at 
subheading 5503.20.00.20 is specifically excluded from the order. Also 
specifically excluded from the order are PSF of 10 to 18 denier that 
are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches (fibers used in the manufacture of 
carpeting). In addition, low-melt PSF is excluded from the order. Low-
melt PSF is defined as a bi-component fiber with an outer sheath that 
melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner core.
    The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable in 
the HTSUS at subheadings 5503.20.00.45 and 5503.20.00.65. Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is 
dispositive.

Request for Verifications

    The Department will verify factual information relied upon in an 
administrative review if a domestic interested party submits a written 
request not later than 100 days after the date of initiation of the 
review and the Department conducted no verification during either of 
the two immediately preceding administrative reviews. See 19 CFR 
351.307(b)(1)(v)(A). Alternatively, we will conduct a verification 
where ``good cause'' exists. See 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(iv).
    Invista S.a.r.l., the petitioner, requested that we conduct cost 
and sales verifications of FENC in comments it submitted on March 8, 
2011. The request was filed 151 days after the 100-day deadline 
established in 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(v)(A). Accordingly, the 
petitioner's request was untimely in this case. In addition, we 
preliminarily find that good cause, as described in 19 CFR 
351.307(b)(1)(iv), to conduct verifications does not exist in this 
review because FENC has provided adequate explanations of alleged flaws 
in its responses. See Memorandum to the File entitled ``Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Far Eastern New Century Corporation 
Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order (5/1/09-4/30/10)'' dated 
concurrently with this notice.

Product Comparisons

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

Date of Sale

    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that the 
Department normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the 
producer's or exporter's records kept in the ordinary course of 
business, as the date of sale. The regulation provides further that the 
Department may use a date other than the date of the invoice if the 
Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date 
on which the material terms of sale are established. The Department has 
a long-standing practice of finding that, where shipment date from the 
factory precedes invoice date, shipment date better reflects the date 
on which the material terms of sale are established. See 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; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Structural Steel Beams From Germany, 67 FR 35497 (May 20, 2002), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
    With respect to FENC's sales to the United States, shipment date 
usually occurs on or before the date of invoice. The date of shipment 
is the date on which goods are shipped from the factory. The date of 
invoice is the date on which the Government Uniform Invoice is issued. 
Further, based on record evidence, all material terms of sale are 
established at the time of shipment and do not change prior to the 
issuance of the invoice. Therefore, we used the date of shipment as the 
date of sale where shipment date preceded the date of sale in 
accordance with our practice. Where the date of invoice preceded the 
shipment date we used the date of invoice for the date of sale.
    For the majority of FENC's home-market sales, the goods are shipped 
from the factory on the same day that the Government Uniform Invoice is 
issued. For the remaining sales, the invoice date occurs a few days 
after the date of shipment from the factory. Based on record evidence, 
all material terms of sale are established at the time of shipment. 
There is no evidence on the record that there were order changes in the 
few days between the date of shipment and the issuance of the 
Government Uniform Invoice. Based upon these facts and in accordance 
with our practice, we preliminarily determine that shipment date is the 
appropriate date of sale for all home-market sales.

Export Price

    For sales to the United States, we calculated export price in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because the merchandise was 
sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the 
United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States 
and because constructed export-price methodology was not otherwise 
warranted. We calculated export price based on the free-on-board price 
to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we 
made deductions, consistent with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, for 
the following movement expenses: Inland freight from the plant to the 
port of exportation, inland insurance in Taiwan, brokerage and 
handling, harbor service fees, trade promotion fees, and 
containerization expenses. No other adjustments were claimed or 
allowed.

Normal Value

Selection of Comparison Market

    To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of PSF 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating normal 
value, we

[[Page 22368]]

compared the volume of the respondent's home-market sales of the 
foreign like product to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act. Pursuant to 
section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, because the respondent's aggregate 
volume of home-market sales of the foreign like product was greater 
than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable for 
comparison purposes.

Cost of Production

    We disregarded below-cost sales by FENC in the last administrative 
review of the order completed prior to the initiation of this review. 
See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 18348 (April 22, 2009); 
see also Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 6136, 6137 
(February 5, 2009). Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 
the Act, there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that the 
respondent made sales of the foreign like product in its comparison 
market at prices below the cost of production within the meaning of 
section 773(b) of the Act in this review.
    We calculated the cost of production on a product-specific basis, 
based on the sum of the respondent's cost of materials and fabrication 
for the foreign like product plus amounts for general and 
administrative expenses, interest expenses, and the costs of all 
expenses incidental to preparing the foreign like product for shipment 
in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.
    We relied on cost-of-production information FENC submitted in its 
response to our cost questionnaire, including FENC's adjustment to its 
cost-of-manufacturing information which accounts for purchases of 
purified terephthalic acid from affiliated parties at non-arm's-length 
prices in accordance with the major-input rule of section 773(f)(3) of 
the Act.
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average cost-of-production figures for the period of review to the 
home-market sales of the foreign like product, as required under 
section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales were made 
at prices below the cost of production. The prices were exclusive of 
any applicable movement charges, packing expenses, warranties, and 
indirect selling expenses. In determining whether to disregard home-
market sales made at prices below their cost of production and in 
accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D) of the Act, we 
examined whether such sales were made within an extended period of time 
in substantial quantities and at prices which permitted the recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time.
    For home-market sales of models not produced during the period of 
review, we have relied on the cost-of-production information of the 
most physically similar models, consistent with our long-standing 
preference where such information is available. See Stainless Steel 
Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 76 FR 2332 (January 13, 2011), and the 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 and Notice of 
Final Results of the Tenth Administrative Review and New Shipper Review 
of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon 
Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea, 70 FR 12443 (March 14, 
2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.
    We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of the 
respondent's home-market sales were at prices below the cost of 
production and, in addition, the below-cost sales were made within an 
extended period of time in substantial quantities. In addition, these 
sales were made at prices that did not permit the recovery of costs 
within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we disregarded these 
sales and used the remaining sales of the same product as the basis for 
determining normal value in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 
Act.

Calculation of Normal Value

    We calculated normal value based on the price FENC reported for 
home-market sales to unaffiliated customers which we determined were 
within the ordinary course of trade. We made adjustments for 
differences in domestic and export packing expenses in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. We also made 
adjustments, consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, for 
inland-freight expenses from the plant to the customer and expenses 
associated with loading the merchandise onto the truck to be shipped. 
In addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of 
sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410. We made these adjustments, where appropriate, by deducting 
direct selling expenses incurred on home-market sales (i.e., imputed 
credit expenses and warranties) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses 
(i.e., imputed credit expenses and bank charges) to normal value.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine normal value based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade as the export price. Pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.412(c)(1), the normal-value level of trade is based on the 
starting price of the sales in the comparison market or, when normal 
value is based on constructed value, the starting price of the sales 
from which we derive selling, general, and administrative expenses and 
profit. For export-price sales, the U.S. level of trade is based on the 
starting price of the sales in the U.S. market, which is usually from 
the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether comparison-market sales are at a different 
level of trade than export-price sales, we examine stages in the 
marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution 
between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 
351.412(c)(2). If the comparison-market sales are at a different level 
of trade and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested 
in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which 
normal value is based and the comparison-market sales at the level of 
trade of the export transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment 
under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    In this review, we obtained information from FENC regarding the 
marketing stages involved in making its reported home-market and U.S. 
sales for each channel of distribution. FENC reported one channel of 
distribution (i.e., direct sales to distributers) and a single level of 
trade in the U.S. market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we 
have organized the common selling functions into four major categories: 
sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory 
and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty services. Because the 
sales process and selling functions FENC performed for selling to the 
U.S. market did not vary by individual customers, the necessary 
condition for finding they constitute different levels of trade was not 
met. Accordingly, we determined that all of FENC's U.S. sales 
constitute a single level of trade.
    FENC reported a single channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales 
to end-users) and a single level of trade in the home market. Because 
the sales process

[[Page 22369]]

and selling functions FENC performed for selling to home-market 
customers did not vary by individual customers, we preliminarily 
determine that all of FENC's home-market sales constitute a single 
level of trade.
    We found that the export-price level of trade was similar to the 
home-market level of trade in terms of selling activities. 
Specifically, the levels of expense were similar for the selling 
functions FENC provided in both markets. Accordingly, we considered the 
export-price level of trade to be similar to the home-market level of 
trade and not at a different stage of distribution than the home-market 
level of trade. Therefore, we matched export-price sales to sales at 
the same level of trade in the home market and no level-of-trade 
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is necessary.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a 
dumping margin of 2.92 percent exists for FENC for the period May 1, 
2009, through April 30, 2010.

Public Comment

    We will disclose the documents resulting from our analysis to 
parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of 
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If a hearing is requested, the 
Department will notify interested parties of the hearing schedule.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results of this review. Interested parties may submit case briefs 
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal 
briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may 
be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 
review are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of 
the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic 
version included.
    We intend to issue the final results of this review, including the 
results of our analysis of issues raised in any submitted written 
comments, within 120 days after publication of this notice.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. FENC reported the name of the 
importer of record and the entered value for all of its sales to the 
United States during the period of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate 
for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins we 
calculated for all U.S. sales to the importer and dividing this amount 
by the total entered value of those sales.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the period of review produced by FENC for which it 
did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In 
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries 
at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate 
company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this 
clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of 
the final results of this review.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for 
all shipments of PSF from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by 
section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rate for FENC will 
be the rate established in the final results of this administrative 
review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not 
covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the 
proceeding, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter 
is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original 
investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a 
firm covered in this review, the cash-deposit rate will be 7.31 
percent, the all-others rate established in Notice of Amended Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester 
Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Antidumping Duty Orders: 
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, 
65 FR 33807 (May 25, 2000).

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 14, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-9716 Filed 4-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P