Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 29023-29029 [2017-13380]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2017 / Notices
adverse facts available pursuant to
sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, see
the Preliminary Decision
Memorandum.5
Partial Rescission of Administrative
Review, and Intent To Rescind, In Part
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Department will rescind an
administrative review, in whole or in
part, if the parties that requested a
review withdraw the request within 90
days of the date of publication of the
notice of initiation. Mid Continent Steel
& Wire, Inc. (the petitioner) withdrew
its requests for review of Astrotech
Steels Private Limited; Blue Moon
Logistics Private Ltd.; Bollore Logistics
Vietnam Co. Ltd.; Dahnay Logistics
Private Ltd; FGS Logistics Co. Ltd.;
Honour Lane Shipping Ltd; SDV
Vietnam Co. Ltd.; and United Nail
Products Co. Ltd. No other party
requested a review of these producers/
exporters.6 Therefore, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Department is rescinding this review
with respect to these companies.
As explained in the Preliminary
Decision Memorandum, there is no
evidence that Dicha Sombrilla Co., Ltd.
had a Type 3 (i.e., reviewable) entry of
subject merchandise during the POR.
Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3), we preliminarily intend
to rescind the review for Dicha
Sombrilla Co., Ltd.7
Preliminary Results of Review
submit case briefs no later than 30 days
after the date of publication of these
preliminary results of review.8 Parties
who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs
in this proceeding are encouraged to
submit with each argument: (1) A
statement of the issue; (2) a brief
summary of the argument; and (3) a
table of authorities.9 Rebuttal briefs,
limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, may be filed no later than five
days after the case briefs are filed.10
Interested parties who wish to request
a hearing must submit a written request
to the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance, U.S.
Department of Commerce, filed
electronically using ACCESS. An
electronically filed document must be
received successfully in its entirety by
the Department’s ACCESS by 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time within 30 days after the
date of publication of this notice.11
Hearing requests should contain the
following: (1) The party’s name,
address, and telephone number; (2) the
number of participants; and (3) a list of
the issues to be discussed. Issues raised
in the hearing will be limited to those
raised in the respective case briefs.
Unless extended, the Department
intends to issue the final results of this
review, including the results of its
analysis of issues raised by parties in
their comments, within 120 days after
the publication of these preliminary
results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
Assessment Rates and Cash Deposit
Requirement
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(b)(4)(i), we preliminarily
Subsidy rate
assigned subsidy rates in the amounts
Producer/exporter
(percent)
shown above for the producers/
exporters shown above. Upon issuance
Truong Vinh Ltd ....................
313.97
Rich State Inc .......................
313.97 of the final results, the Department shall
determine, and U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) shall assess,
Disclosure and Public Comment
CVDs on all appropriate entries covered
The Department intends to disclose
by this review. We intend to issue
calculations performed for these
instructions to CBP 15 days after
preliminary results to the parties within publication of the final results of
five days of the date of publication of
review.
this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the
351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR
Act, the Department also intends to
351.309(c), interested parties may
instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of
estimated CVDs, in the amounts shown
5 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary
above, for each of the respective
Decision Memorandum can be found as an
companies shown above, on shipments
appendix to this notice.
of subject merchandise entered, or
6 See Letter from the petitioner re: Administrative
withdrawn from warehouse, for
Review of Certain Steel Nails from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Withdrawal of Request for
consumption on or after the date of
Administrative Reviews, dated October 5, 2016.
publication of the final results of this
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
As a result of this review, we
preliminarily determine the
countervailable subsidy rates to be:
7 In Alleghany Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 346
F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003), the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the
Department’s practice of rescinding annual reviews
when there are no entries of subject merchandise
during the POR.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:33 Jun 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
8 See
19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
10 See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
11 See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
9 See
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29023
review. For all non-reviewed firms, we
will instruct CBP to continue to collect
cash deposits at the most-recent
company-specific or all-others rate
applicable to the company, as
appropriate. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
For the non-reviewed firms for which
we are rescinding this administrative
review, the Department intends to
instruct CBP 15 days after publication of
these preliminary results of review to
assess CVDs at rates equal to the rates
of cash deposits for estimated
countervailing duties required at the
time of entry, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption, during the
period November 3, 2014, through
December 31, 2015, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.212(c)(2).
These preliminary results are 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 19, 2017.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
Appendix I
List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary
Decision Memorandum
1. Summary
2. Background
3. Partial Rescission of Review
4. Scope of the Order
5. Application of the Countervailing Duty
Law to Imports From Vietnam
6. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and
Adverse Inferences
A. Application of AFA: Truong Vinh, Rich
State, and the GOV
B. Selection of the Adverse Facts Available
Rate
C. Corroboration of Secondary Information
7. Disclosure and Public Comment
8. Conclusion
[FR Doc. 2017–13425 Filed 6–26–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–060, A–533–875, A–580–893, A–583–
860, A–552–822]
Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber
From the People’s Republic of China,
India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan,
and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value
Investigations
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective June 20, 2017.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\27JNN1.SGM
27JNN1
29024
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2017 / Notices
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edythe Artman at (202) 482–3931 (the
People’s Republic of China (the PRC)),
Patrick O’Connor at (202) 482–0989
(India), Karine Gziryan at (202) 482–
4081 (the Republic of Korea (Korea)),
Lilit Astvatsatrian at (202) 482–6412
(Taiwan), and Mike Heaney at (202)
482–4475 (the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam (Vietnam)), AD/CVD
Operations, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petitions
On May 31, 2017, the U.S.
Department of Commerce (the
Department) received antidumping duty
(AD) Petitions concerning imports of
fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine
denier PSF) from the PRC, India, Korea,
Taiwan and Vietnam, filed in proper
form on behalf of DAK Americas LLC,
Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America,
and Auriga Polymers Inc. (collectively,
the petitioners).1 The AD Petitions were
accompanied by countervailing duty
(CVD) Petitions concerning imports of
fine denier PSF from India and the PRC.
The petitioners are domestic producers
of fine denier PSF.2
On June 5, 2017, the Department
requested supplemental information
pertaining to certain areas of the
Petitions.3 The petitioners filed
responses to these requests on June 8,
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
1 See
Letter to the Secretary of Commerce re:
‘‘Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the
People’s Republic of China, India, the Republic of
Korea, Taiwan and the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam—Petitions for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties’’ (May 31,
2017) (the Petitions).
2 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2.
3 See Letter from the Department, ‘‘Petitions for
the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Fine Denier Polyester Staple
Fiber from the People’s Republic of China, India,
the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Supplemental Questions,’’
dated June 5, 2017 (General Issues Supplemental
Questionnaire); see also Petition for the Imposition
of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic
of China: Supplemental Questions; and Petition for
the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports
of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from India:
Supplemental Questions; and Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of
Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the
Republic of Korea: Supplemental Questions; and
Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties
on Imports of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber
from Taiwan: Supplemental Questions; and Petition
for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on
Imports of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Supplemental
Questions. All of these documents are dated June
5, 2017. See also country-specific memoranda to the
file ‘‘Telephone Call to Foreign Market Researcher
Regarding Antidumping Petition’’ dated June 20,
2017.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:33 Jun 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
2017.4 The petitioners filed a correction
to a margin calculation for the PRC at
the request of the Department on June
12, 2017.5 The petitioners filed revised
scope language on June 14, 2017.6
In accordance with section 732(b) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), the petitioners allege that imports
of fine denier PSF from the PRC, India,
Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam are being,
or are likely to be, sold in the United
States at less than fair value within the
meaning of section 731 of the Act, and
that such imports are materially
injuring, or threatening material injury
to, the domestic industry producing fine
denier PSF in the United States. Also,
consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the
Act, the Petitions are accompanied by
information reasonably available to the
petitioners supporting their allegations.
The Department finds that the
petitioners filed these Petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because
the petitioners are interested parties as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act.
The Department also finds that the
petitioners demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the
initiation of the AD investigations that
the petitioners are requesting.7
Periods of Investigation
Because the Petitions were filed on
May 31, 2017, the period of
investigation (POI) for all investigations
except the PRC and Vietnam, is April 1,
2016, through March 31, 2017. Because
4 See Letter from the petitioners, ‘‘Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic
of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan
and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Petitioners’
Amendment to Volume I Relating to General
Issues;’’ (June 8, 2017) (General Issues Supplement),
at Exhibit I–S2, see also ‘‘Fine Denier Polyester
Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of China:
Petitioners’ Response to Questions Concerning the
Antidumping Duty Petition;’’ and ‘‘Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea:
Petitioners’ Response to Questions Concerning the
Antidumping Duty Petition;’’ and ‘‘Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from India: Petitioners’
Response to Questions Concerning the
Antidumping Duty Petition;’’ and ‘‘Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Petitioners’
Response to Questions Concerning the
Antidumping Duty Petition;’’ and ‘‘Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam: Petitioners’ Response to Questions
Concerning the Antidumping Duty Petition.’’ Each
of these documents is dated June 8, 2017.
5 See Letter from the petitioners, ‘‘Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic
of China,’’ dated June 12, 2017.
6 See Memorandum to the File ‘‘Phone
Conversation Regarding Scope,’’ dated June 13,
2017; see also Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber
from the People’s Republic of China, India, the
Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam—Petitioners’ Second
Amendment to Volume I Relating to General Issues,
dated June 14, 2017 (Scope Supplement to the
Petitions).
7 See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for
the Petitions’’ section, below.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the PRC and Vietnam are non-market
economy (NME) countries, the POI for
these investigations is October 1, 2016,
through March 31, 2017.
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these
investigations is fine denier PSF from
the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan and
Vietnam. For a full description of the
scope of these investigations, see the
‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in the
Appendix to this notice.
Comments on Scope of the
Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, the
Department issued questions to, and
received responses from, the petitioners
pertaining to the proposed scope to
ensure that the scope language in the
Petitions would be an accurate
reflection of the products for which the
domestic industry is seeking relief.8
As discussed in the preamble to the
Department’s regulations, we are setting
aside a period for interested parties to
raise issues regarding product coverage
(scope).9 The Department will consider
all comments received from interested
parties and, if necessary, will consult
with interested parties prior to the
issuance of the preliminary
determinations. If scope comments
include factual information,10 all such
factual information should be limited to
public information. To facilitate
preparation of its questionnaires, the
Department requests all interested
parties to submit such comments by
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Monday,
July 10, 2017, which is 20 calendar days
from the signature date of this notice.
Any rebuttal comments, which may
include factual information, must be
filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, July
20, 2017, which is 10 calendar days
from the initial comments deadline.11
The Department requests that any
factual information the parties consider
relevant to the scope of the
investigations be submitted during this
time period. However, if a party
subsequently finds that additional
factual information pertaining to the
scope of the investigations may be
relevant, the party may contact the
Department and request permission to
submit the additional information. All
such comments must be filed on the
8 See General Issues Supplement, at 1–3 and
Exhibit I–S1; and Scope Supplement to the
Petitions, at 2.
9 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties,
Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
10 See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ‘‘factual
information’’).
11 See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
E:\FR\FM\27JNN1.SGM
27JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2017 / Notices
records of each of the concurrent AD
and CVD investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department
must be filed electronically using
Enforcement and Compliance’s
Antidumping Duty and Countervailing
Duty Centralized Electronic Service
System (ACCESS).12 An electronically
filed document must be received
successfully in its entirety by the time
and date it is due. Documents exempted
from the electronic submission
requirements must be filed manually
(i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement
and Compliance’s APO/Dockets Unit,
Room 18022, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230, and
stamped with the date and time of
receipt by the applicable deadlines.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Comments on Product Characteristics
for AD Questionnaires
The Department will provide
interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the appropriate physical
characteristics of fine denier PSF to be
reported in response to the
Department’s AD questionnaires. This
information will be used to identify the
key physical characteristics of the
merchandise under consideration in
order to report the relevant costs of
production accurately as well as to
develop appropriate productcomparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any
information or comments that they feel
are relevant to the development of an
accurate list of physical characteristics.
Specifically, they may provide
comments as to which characteristics
are appropriate to use as: (1) General
product characteristics and (2) productcomparison criteria. We note that it is
not always appropriate to use all
product characteristics as productcomparison criteria. We base productcomparison criteria on meaningful
commercial differences among products.
In other words, although there may be
some physical product characteristics
utilized by manufacturers to describe
fine denier PSF, it may be that only a
select few product characteristics take
12 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures;
Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR
39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and
Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System
Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details
of the Department’s electronic filing requirements,
which went into effect on August 5, 2011.
Information on help using ACCESS can be found at
https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook
can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/
Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling
%20Procedures.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:33 Jun 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
into account commercially meaningful
physical characteristics. In addition,
interested parties may comment on the
order in which the physical
characteristics should be used in
matching products. Generally, the
Department attempts to list the most
important physical characteristics first
and the least important characteristics
last.
In order to consider the suggestions of
interested parties in developing and
issuing the AD questionnaires, all
product characteristics comments must
be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on July 10,
2017. Any rebuttal comments must be
filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on July 20, 2017.
All comments and submissions to the
Department must be filed electronically
using ACCESS, as explained above, on
the records of the the PRC, India, Korea,
Taiwan and Vietnam less-than-fairvalue investigations.
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petitions
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires
that a petition be filed on behalf of the
domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A)
of the Act provides that a petition meets
this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the
petition account for: (i) At least 25
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product; and (ii) more
than 50 percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing
support for, or opposition to, the
petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D)
of the Act provides that, if the petition
does not establish support of domestic
producers or workers accounting for
more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product,
the Department shall: (i) Poll the
industry or rely on other information in
order to determine if there is support for
the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine
industry support using a statistically
valid sampling method to poll the
‘‘industry.’’
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines
the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a
whole of a domestic like product. Thus,
to determine whether a petition has the
requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to
producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The International
Trade Commission (ITC), which is
responsible for determining whether
‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been
injured, must also determine what
constitutes a domestic like product in
order to define the industry. While both
the Department and the ITC must apply
the same statutory definition regarding
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29025
the domestic like product,13 they do so
for different purposes and pursuant to a
separate and distinct authority. In
addition, the Department’s
determination is subject to limitations of
time and information. Although this
may result in different definitions of the
like product, such differences do not
render the decision of either agency
contrary to law.14
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the
domestic like product as ‘‘a product
which is like, or in the absence of like,
most similar in characteristics and uses
with, the article subject to an
investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the
reference point from which the
domestic like product analysis begins is
‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’
(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to
be investigated, which normally will be
the scope as defined in the Petitions).
With regard to the domestic like
product, the petitioners do not offer a
definition of the domestic like product
distinct from the scope of the
investigations. Based on our analysis of
the information submitted on the
record, we have determined that fine
denier PSF, as defined in the scope,
constitutes a single domestic like
product and we have analyzed industry
support in terms of that domestic like
product.15
In determining whether the
petitioners have standing under section
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered
the industry support data contained in
the Petitions with reference to the
13 See
section 771(10) of the Act.
USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp.
2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd.
v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988),
aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
15 For a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis, see Antidumping Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Fine Denier Polyester Staple
Fiber from the People’s Republic of China (PRC AD
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of
Industry Support for the Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic
of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, (Attachment II);
Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from
India (India AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment
II; Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from
the Republic of Korea (Korea AD Initiation
Checklist), at Attachment II; Antidumping Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan (Taiwan AD
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; and
Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam AD
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These
checklists are dated concurrently with, and hereby
adopted by, this notice and on file electronically via
ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is
also available in the Central Records Unit, Room
B8024 of the main Department of Commerce
building.
14 See
E:\FR\FM\27JNN1.SGM
27JNN1
29026
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2017 / Notices
domestic like product as defined in the
‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in
Appendix I of this notice. To establish
industry support, the petitioners
provided their own production of the
domestic like product in 2016.16 In
addition, the petitioners provided a
letter of support from Palmetto
Synthetics, LLC, stating that the
company supports the Petitions and
providing its own production of the
domestic like product in 2016.17 The
petitioners identify themselves and
Palmetto Synthetics, LLC as the
companies constituting the U.S. fine
denier PSF industry and state that there
are no other known producers of fine
denier PSF in the United States;
therefore, the Petitions are supported by
100 percent of the U.S. industry.18
Our review of the data provided in the
Petitions, the General Issues
Supplement, and other information
readily available to the Department
indicates that the petitioners have
established industry support for the
Petitions.19 First, the Petitions
established support from domestic
producers (or workers) accounting for
more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product
and, as such, the Department is not
required to take further action in order
to evaluate industry support (e.g.,
polling).20 Second, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petitions
account for at least 25 percent of the
total production of the domestic like
product.21 Finally, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petitions
account for more than 50 percent of the
production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry
expressing support for, or opposition to,
16 See
Volume I of the Petitions, at 3 and Exhibit
I–2.
18 Id.,
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
The petitioners allege that the U.S.
industry producing the domestic like
product is being materially injured, or is
threatened with material injury, by
reason of the imports of the subject
merchandise sold at less than normal
value (NV). In addition, the petitioners
allege that subject imports exceed the
negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.24
The petitioners contend that the
industry’s injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share;
underselling and price suppression or
depression; lost sales and revenues;
decreased production, capacity
utilization, and U.S. shipments; and
declines in financial performance.25 We
have assessed the allegations and
supporting evidence regarding material
injury, threat of material injury, and
causation, and we have determined that
these allegations are properly supported
by adequate evidence, and meet the
statutory requirements for initiation.26
Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value
The following is a description of the
allegations of sales at less than fair value
upon which the Department based its
decision to initiate AD investigations of
imports of fine denier PSF from the
PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam.
The sources of data for the deductions
and adjustments relating to U.S. price
22 Id.
23 Id.
17 Id.
at 2–3 and Exhibit I–1; see also General
Issues Supplement, at 3 and Exhibit I–S2.
19 See PRC AD Initiation Checklist; India AD
Initiation Checklist; Korea AD Initiation Checklist;
Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist; and Vietnam AD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
20 See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also
PRC AD Initiation Checklist; India AD Initiation
Checklist; Korea AD Initiation Checklist; Taiwan
AD Initiation Checklist; and Vietnam AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
21 See PRC AD Initiation Checklist; India AD
Initiation Checklist; Korea AD Initiation Checklist;
Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist; and Vietnam AD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
the Petitions.22 Accordingly, the
Department determines that the
Petitions were filed on behalf of the
domestic industry within the meaning
of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
The Department finds that the
petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf
of the domestic industry because they
are interested parties as defined in
section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they
have demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the AD
investigations that they are requesting
that the Department initiate.23
18:33 Jun 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
24 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14–15 and
Exhibit I–7.
25 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14–31 and
Exhibits I–5, I–8, I–9, and I–10.
26 See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment
III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic
of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Attachment III);
India AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III;
Korea AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III;
Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III;
and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment
III.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and NV are discussed in greater detail
in the country-specific initiation
checklists.
Export Price
For the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan,
and Vietnam, the petitioners based the
U.S. price on export price (EP) using
average unit values (AUVs) of publicly
available import data.27 For the PRC and
Taiwan, the petitioners also based the
U.S. price on EP using price quotes for
sales of fine denier PSF produced in,
and exported from, the subject county
and offered for sale in the United
States.28 Where applicable, the
petitioners made deductions from U.S.
price for movement and other expenses,
consistent with the terms of sale.29
Normal Value
For India, Korea, and Taiwan, the
petitioners provided home market price
information for fine denier PSF
produced in, and offered for sale in,
each of these countries that was
obtained through market research.30 For
all three of these countries, the
petitioners provided a declaration from
a market researcher to support the price
information.31 Where applicable, the
petitioners made deductions for
movement expenses, consistent with the
terms of sale.32
For Korea and Taiwan, the petitioners
also provided information that sales of
fine denier PSF in the respective home
markets were made at prices below the
cost of production (COP). With respect
to Korea, the petitioners calculated NV
based on home market prices and
constructed value (CV).33 With respect
to Taiwan, the petitioners calculated NV
based on CV.34 For further discussion of
COP and NV based on CV, see the
27 See PRC AD Initiation Checklist; India AD
Initiation Checklist; Korea AD Initiation Checklist;
Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist; and Vietnam AD
Initiation Checklist.
28 See PRC AD Initiation Checklist and Taiwan
AD Initiation Checklist.
29 See PRC AD Initiation Checklist; India AD
Initiation Checklist; Korea AD Initiation Checklist;
Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist; and Vietnam AD
Initiation Checklist.
30 See India AD Initiation Checklist, Korea AD
Initiation Checklist, and Taiwan AD Initiation
Checklist. For India, the petitioners also provided
constructed value data and calculated margins
based on a comparison between EP and constructed
value. See India AD Initiation Checklist. Because
the petitioners provided appropriate home market
prices, we have relied on these prices as the basis
for normal value, pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of
the Act, for purposes of initiation.
31 See Id.
32 See Id.
33 See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
34 See Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist.
E:\FR\FM\27JNN1.SGM
27JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
section ‘‘Normal Value Based on
Constructed Value’’ below.35
With respect to the PRC and Vietnam,
the petitioners stated that the
Department has found these countries to
be NME countries in prior
administrative proceedings in which
they were involved.36 In accordance
with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the
presumption of NME status remains in
effect until revoked by the Department.
The presumption of NME status for the
PRC and Vietnam has not been revoked
by the Department and, therefore,
remains in effect for purposes of the
initiation of these investigations.
Accordingly, NV in both the PRC and
Vietnam is appropriately based on
factors of production (FOPs) valued in
a surrogate market economy country, in
accordance with section 773(c) of the
Act.37 In the course of these
investigations, all parties, and the
public, will have the opportunity to
provide relevant information related to
the granting of separate rates to
individual exporters.
The petitioners claim that Mexico is
an appropriate surrogate country for the
PRC, because it is a market economy
country that is at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the
PRC, it is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise, and public
information from Mexico is available to
value all material input factors.38 Based
on the information provided by the
petitioners, we determine that it is
appropriate to use Mexico as a surrogate
country for initiation purposes.
The petitioners claim that India is an
appropriate surrogate country for
Vietnam, because it is a market
economy country that is at a level of
economic development comparable to
that of Vietnam, it is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise,
and public information from India is
available to value all material input
factors.39 Based on the information
provided by the petitioners, we
determine that it is appropriate to use
35 In accordance with section 505(a) of the Trade
Preferences Extension Act of 2015, amending
section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for all of the
investigations, the Department will request
information necessary to calculate the CV and COP
to determine whether there are reasonable grounds
to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like
product have been made at prices that represent
less than the COP of the product. The Department
no longer requires a COP allegation to conduct this
analysis.
36 See Volume II of the Petition, at 4–5; see also
Volume VI of the Petition, at 4–5.
37 See PRC AD Initiation Checklist and Vietnam
AD Initiation Checklist.
38 See Volume II of the Petition at 5–6 and Exhibit
AD–CN–4.
39 See Volume VI of the Petition, at 5–6, Exhibit
AD–VN–4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:33 Jun 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
India as a surrogate country for
initiation purposes.
Interested parties will have the
opportunity to submit comments
regarding surrogate country selection
and, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an
opportunity to submit publicly available
information to value FOPs within 30
days before the scheduled date of the
preliminary determination.
Factors of Production
Because information regarding the
volume of inputs consumed by the PRC
and Vietnamese producers/exporters is
not available, the petitioners relied on
the production experience of a domestic
producer of fine denier PSF in the
United States as an estimate of Chinese
and Vietnamese manufacturers’ FOPs.40
The petitioners valued the estimated
FOPs using surrogate values from
Mexico for the PRC and surrogate values
from India for Vietnam and used the
average POI exchange rate to convert the
data to U.S. dollars.41
Normal Value Based on Constructed
Value
Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the
Act, COP consists of the cost of
manufacturing (COM), selling, general,
and administrative (SG&A) expenses,
financial expenses, and packing
expenses. For Korea and Taiwan, the
petitioners calculated the COM based on
the input factors of production and
usage rates from a U.S. producer of fine
denier PSF. The input factors of
production were valued using publicly
available data on costs specific to Korea
and Taiwan.42 Specifically, the prices
for raw material and packing inputs
were based on Korean and Taiwanese
publicly available import and, for one
Taiwanese input, export data. Labor and
energy costs were valued using publicly
available sources for Korea and Taiwan.
The petitioners calculated factory
overhead, SG&A, and financial expenses
based on the experience of Korean and
Taiwanese producers of comparable
merchandise.43
For Korea and Taiwan, because
certain home market prices fell below
the COP, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4),
773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, as noted
above, the petitioners calculated NVs
40 See Volume II of the Petition at 6 and Exhibit
AD–CN–3, and PRC AD Supplement at 1 and
Exhibit AD–CN–S3; see also Volume VI of the
Petition at 5 and Exhibit AD–VN–3, and Vietnam
AD Supplement, at 1 and Exhibit A–VN–S3.
41 See Volume II of the Petition at 6 and Exhibits
AD–CN–3 and AD–CN–4; see also Volume VI of the
Petition at Exhibit AD–VN–4.
42 See Korea AD Initiation Checklist and Taiwan
AD Initiation Checklist.
43 See Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29027
based on CV.44 Pursuant to section
773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the
COM, SG&A expenses, financial
expenses, packing expenses, and profit.
The petitioners calculated CV using the
same average COM, SG&A expenses,
financial expenses, and packing
expenses that were used to calculate the
COP.45 The petitioners relied on the
financial statements of the same
producers that they used for calculating
factory overhead, SG&A expenses, and
financial expenses to calculate the profit
rates.46
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by the
petitioners, there is reason to believe
that imports of fine denier PSF from the
PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value.
Based on comparisons of EP to NV in
accordance with sections 772 and 773 of
the Act, the estimated dumping margins
for fine denier PSF for each of the
countries covered by this initiation are
as follows: (1) PRC—88.07 to 103.06
percent; 47 (2) India—21.43; 48 (3)
Korea—37.28 to 45.23 percent; 49 (4)
Taiwan—31.07 to 56.72 percent; 50 and
(5) Vietnam is 64.73 percent.51
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value
Investigations
Based upon the examination of the
AD Petitions, we find that the Petitions
meet the requirements of section 732 of
the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD
investigations to determine whether
imports of fine denier PSF from the
PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value. In
accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1),
unless postponed, we will make our
preliminary determinations no later
than 140 days after the date of this
initiation.
Under the Trade Preferences
Extension Act of 2015, numerous
amendments to the AD and CVD law
were made.52 The 2015 law does not
specify dates of application for those
amendments. On August 6, 2015, the
Department published an interpretative
rule, in which it announced the
applicability dates for each amendment
44 Id.
45 Id.
46 Id.
47 See
PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
India AD Initiation Checklist.
49 See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
50 See Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist.
51 See Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.
52 See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015,
Public Law 114–27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
48 See
E:\FR\FM\27JNN1.SGM
27JNN1
29028
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2017 / Notices
to the Act, except for amendments
contained in section 771(7) of the Act,
which relate to determinations of
material injury by the ITC.53 The
amendments to sections 771(15), 773,
776, and 782 of the Act are applicable
to all determinations made on or after
August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to
these AD investigations.54
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Respondent Selection
The petitioners named 12 companies
in India,55 31 companies in Korea,56 and
eight companies in Taiwan,57 as
producers/exporters of fine denier PSF.
Following standard practice in AD
investigations involving market
economy countries, in the event the
Department determines that the number
of companies for any one market
economy country identified above is
large, the Department intends to review
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) data for U.S. imports of fine
denier PSF during the respective POIs
under the appropriate Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
subheadings, and if it determines that it
cannot individually examine each
company based upon the Department’s
resources, then the Department will
select respondents based on that data.
We intend to release CBP data under
Administrative Protective Order (APO)
to all parties with access to information
protected by APO within five business
days of the announcement of the
initiation of these investigations.
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b).
Instructions for filing such applications
may be found on the Department’s Web
site at https://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.
Interested parties may submit
comments regarding the CBP data and
respondent selection by 5:00 p.m. ET
seven calendar days after the placement
of the CBP data on the record of these
investigations. Interested parties
wishing to submit rebuttal comments
should submit those comments five
calendar days after the deadline for
initial comments.
Comments must be filed
electronically using ACCESS. An
electronically-filed document must be
received successfully, in its entirety, by
ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on
53 See Dates of Application of Amendments to the
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made
by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80
FR 46793 (August 6, 2015).
54 Id. at 46794–95. The 2015 amendments may be
found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114thcongress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
55 See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I–4.
56 Id.
57 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:33 Jun 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
the date noted above. If respondent
selection is necessary, within 20 days of
publication of this notice, we intend to
make our decisions regarding
respondent selection based upon
comments received from interested
parties and our analysis of the record
information.
With respect to the PRC and Vietnam,
the petitioners named, respectively,
seven and four producers/exporters as
accounting for the majority of exports of
fine denier PSF to the United States
from the PRC and Vietanm.58 In
accordance with our standard practice
for respondent selection in AD cases
involving NME countries, we intend to
issue quantity and value (Q&V)
questionnaires to producers/exporters of
merchandise subject to these NME
investigations and, if necessary, base
respondent selection on the responses
received. For these NME investigations,
the Department will request Q&V
information from known exporters and
producers identified, with complete
contact information, in the Petitions. In
addition, the Department will post the
Q&V questionnaire along with filing
instructions on Enforcement and
Compliance’s Web site at https://
www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.
Producers/exporters of fine denier
PSF from the PRC and Vietnam that do
not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail
may still submit a response to the Q&V
questionnaire and can obtain a copy of
the Q&V questionnaire from
Enforcement & Compliance’s Web site.
The Q&V response must be submitted
by the relevant PRC exporters/producers
no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on July 5,
2017. All Q&V responses must be filed
electronically via ACCESS.
Separate Rates
In order to obtain separate-rate status
in an NME investigation, exporters and
producers must submit a separate-rate
application.59 The specific requirements
for submitting a separate-rate
application in the PRC and Vietnam
investigations are outlined in detail in
the application itself, which is available
on the Department’s Web site at https://
58 Though the petitioners listed 88 ‘‘known
producers of fine denier PSF from China’’ in
Volume I of the Petition at Exhibit I–4, they
clarified in the PRC-specific Volume II of the
Petition that ‘‘to the best of Petitioners’ knowledge,
fine denier PSF is produced in China and exported
to the United States’’ by seven companies that
account for most or all U.S. imports during the POI.
See Volume II of the Petition at 2. See also Volume
I of the Petitions at exhibit I–4.
59 See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates
Practice and Application of Combination Rates in
Antidumping Investigation involving Non-Market
Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf
(Policy Bulletin 05.1).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-seprate.html. The separate-rate application
will be due 30 days after publication of
this initiation notice.60 Exporters and
producers who submit a separate-rate
application and have been selected as
mandatory respondents will be eligible
for consideration for separate-rate status
only if they respond to all parts of the
Department’s AD questionnaire as
mandatory respondents. The
Department requires that companies
from the PRC and Vietnam submit a
response to both the Q&V questionnaire
and the separate-rate application by the
respective deadlines in order to receive
consideration for separate-rate status.
Companies not filing a timely Q&V
response will not receive separate-rate
consideration.
Use of Combination Rates
The Department will calculate
combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in an NME investigation.
The Separate Rates and Combination
Rates Bulletin states:
{w}hile continuing the practice of assigning
separate rates only to exporters, all separate
rates that the Department will now assign in
its NME Investigation will be specific to
those producers that supplied the exporter
during the period of investigation. Note,
however, that one rate is calculated for the
exporter and all of the producers which
supplied subject merchandise to it during the
period of investigation. This practice applies
both to mandatory respondents receiving an
individually calculated separate rate as well
as the pool of non-investigated firms
receiving the weighted-average of the
individually calculated rates. This practice is
referred to as the application of ‘‘combination
rates’’ because such rates apply to specific
combinations of exporters and one or more
producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to
an exporter will apply only to merchandise
both exported by the firm in question and
produced by a firm that supplied the exporter
during the period of investigation.61
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section
732(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version
of the Petitions have been provided to
the governments of the PRC, India,
Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam via
ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we
will attempt to provide a copy of the
public version of the Petitions to each
exporter named in the Petitions, as
provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
60 Although in past investigations this deadline
was 60 days, consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a),
which states that ‘‘the Secretary may request any
person to submit factual information at any time
during a proceeding,’’ this deadline is now 30 days.
61 See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).
E:\FR\FM\27JNN1.SGM
27JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2017 / Notices
ITC Notification
We will notify the ITC of our
initiation, as required by section 732(d)
of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
within 45 days after the date on which
the Petitions were filed, whether there
is a reasonable indication that imports
of fine denier PSF from the PRC, India,
Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam are
materially injuring or threatening
material injury to a U.S. industry.62 A
negative ITC determination for any
country will result in the investigation
being terminated with respect to that
country.63 Otherwise, these
investigations will proceed according to
statutory and regulatory time limits.
Submission of Factual Information
Factual information is defined in 19
CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence
submitted in response to questionnaires;
(ii) evidence submitted in support of
allegations; (iii) publicly available
information to value factors under 19
CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR
351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on
the record by the Department; and (v)
evidence other than factual information
described in (i)–(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b)
requires any party, when submitting
factual information, to specify under
which subsection of 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21) the information is being
submitted 64 and, if the information is
submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct
factual information already on the
record, to provide an explanation
identifying the information already on
the record that the factual information
seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.65 Time
limits for the submission of factual
information are addressed in 19 CFR
351.301, which provides specific time
limits based on the type of factual
information being submitted. Interested
parties should review the regulations
prior to submitting factual information
in these investigations.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of
time limits before the expiration of a
time limit established under 19 CFR
351.301, or as otherwise specified by the
Secretary. In general, an extension
request will be considered untimely if it
is filed after the expiration of the time
62 A
negative ITC determination for any country
will result in the investigation being terminated
with respect to that country.
63 Id.
64 See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
65 See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:33 Jun 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
limit established under 19 CFR 351.301.
For submissions that are due from
multiple parties simultaneously, an
extension request will be considered
untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET
on the due date. Under certain
circumstances, we may elect to specify
a different time limit by which
extension requests will be considered
untimely for submissions which are due
from multiple parties simultaneously. In
such a case, we will inform parties in
the letter or memorandum setting forth
the deadline (including a specified time)
by which extension requests must be
filed to be considered timely. An
extension request must be made in a
separate, stand-alone submission; under
limited circumstances we will grant
untimely-filed requests for the extension
of time limits. Parties should review
Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78
FR 57790 (September 20, 2013),
available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/201322853.htm, prior to submitting factual
information in these investigations.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual
information in an AD or CVD
proceeding must certify to the accuracy
and completeness of that information.66
Parties are hereby reminded that revised
certification requirements are in effect
for company/government officials, as
well as their representatives.
Investigations initiated on the basis of
petitions filed on or after August 16,
2013, and other segments of any AD or
CVD proceedings initiated on or after
August 16, 2013, should use the formats
for the revised certifications provided at
the end of the Final Rule.67 The
Department intends to reject factual
submissions if the submitting party does
not comply with applicable revised
certification requirements.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On
January 22, 2008, the Department
published Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures;
APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate
in these investigations should ensure
that they meet the requirements of these
66 See
section 782(b) of the Act.
Certification of Factual Information to
Import Administration during Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July
17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked
questions regarding the Final Rule, available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_
info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
67 See
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29029
procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of
appearance as discussed atn 19 CFR
351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i)
of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: June 20, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
Appendix
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these
investigations is fine denier polyester staple
fiber (fine denier PSF), not carded or combed,
measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in
diameter. The scope covers all fine denier
PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The
following products are excluded from the
scope:
(1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3. decitex
(more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065.
(2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bicomponent fiber with a polyester core and an
outer, polyester sheath that melts at a
significantly lower temperature than its inner
polyester core currently classified under
HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.
Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the
HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0025. Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of the
investigations is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2017–13380 Filed 6–26–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–533–876; C–570–061]
Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber
From India and the People’s Republic
of China: Initiation of Countervailing
Duty Investigations
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective June 20, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Trisha Tran at (202) 482–4852 (India);
Yasmin Bordas at (202) 482–3813 and
Davina Friedmann at (202) 482–0698
(the People’s Republic of China), AD/
CVD Operations, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
The Petitions
On May 31, 2017, the U.S.
Department of Commerce (the
E:\FR\FM\27JNN1.SGM
27JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29023-29029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13380]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-060, A-533-875, A-580-893, A-583-860, A-552-822]
Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of
China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective June 20, 2017.
[[Page 29024]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edythe Artman at (202) 482-3931 (the
People's Republic of China (the PRC)), Patrick O'Connor at (202) 482-
0989 (India), Karine Gziryan at (202) 482-4081 (the Republic of Korea
(Korea)), Lilit Astvatsatrian at (202) 482-6412 (Taiwan), and Mike
Heaney at (202) 482-4475 (the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam)),
AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petitions
On May 31, 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department)
received antidumping duty (AD) Petitions concerning imports of fine
denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF) from the PRC, India,
Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam, filed in proper form on behalf of DAK
Americas LLC, Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America, and Auriga Polymers
Inc. (collectively, the petitioners).\1\ The AD Petitions were
accompanied by countervailing duty (CVD) Petitions concerning imports
of fine denier PSF from India and the PRC. The petitioners are domestic
producers of fine denier PSF.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce re: ``Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India,
the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam--Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties'' (May 31, 2017) (the Petitions).
\2\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 5, 2017, the Department requested supplemental information
pertaining to certain areas of the Petitions.\3\ The petitioners filed
responses to these requests on June 8, 2017.\4\ The petitioners filed a
correction to a margin calculation for the PRC at the request of the
Department on June 12, 2017.\5\ The petitioners filed revised scope
language on June 14, 2017.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Letter from the Department, ``Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of
China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Supplemental Questions,'' dated June 5, 2017
(General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Petition for
the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China:
Supplemental Questions; and Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber
from India: Supplemental Questions; and Petition for the Imposition
of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Fine Denier Polyester Staple
Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Supplemental Questions; and
Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Fine
Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Supplemental Questions;
and Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of
Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Supplemental Questions. All of these documents are dated
June 5, 2017. See also country-specific memoranda to the file
``Telephone Call to Foreign Market Researcher Regarding Antidumping
Petition'' dated June 20, 2017.
\4\ See Letter from the petitioners, ``Fine Denier Polyester
Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the
Republic of Korea, Taiwan and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Petitioners' Amendment to Volume I Relating to General Issues;''
(June 8, 2017) (General Issues Supplement), at Exhibit I-S2, see
also ``Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic
of China: Petitioners' Response to Questions Concerning the
Antidumping Duty Petition;'' and ``Fine Denier Polyester Staple
Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Petitioners' Response to Questions
Concerning the Antidumping Duty Petition;'' and ``Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from India: Petitioners' Response to
Questions Concerning the Antidumping Duty Petition;'' and ``Fine
Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Petitioners' Response to
Questions Concerning the Antidumping Duty Petition;'' and ``Fine
Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Petitioners' Response to Questions Concerning the
Antidumping Duty Petition.'' Each of these documents is dated June
8, 2017.
\5\ See Letter from the petitioners, ``Fine Denier Polyester
Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China,'' dated June 12,
2017.
\6\ See Memorandum to the File ``Phone Conversation Regarding
Scope,'' dated June 13, 2017; see also Fine Denier Polyester Staple
Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of
Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam--Petitioners'
Second Amendment to Volume I Relating to General Issues, dated June
14, 2017 (Scope Supplement to the Petitions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of fine denier
PSF from the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within
the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are
materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic
industry producing fine denier PSF in the United States. Also,
consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners
supporting their allegations.
The Department finds that the petitioners filed these Petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested
parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also
finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support
with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that the
petitioners are requesting.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the
Petitions'' section, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Periods of Investigation
Because the Petitions were filed on May 31, 2017, the period of
investigation (POI) for all investigations except the PRC and Vietnam,
is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017. Because the PRC and Vietnam
are non-market economy (NME) countries, the POI for these
investigations is October 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these investigations is fine denier PSF from
the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam. For a full description of
the scope of these investigations, see the ``Scope of the
Investigations,'' in the Appendix to this notice.
Comments on Scope of the Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions
to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the
proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would
be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic
industry is seeking relief.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See General Issues Supplement, at 1-3 and Exhibit I-S1; and
Scope Supplement to the Petitions, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we
are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage (scope).\9\ The Department will consider all
comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will
consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the
preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual
information,\10\ all such factual information should be limited to
public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires,
the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments
by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Monday, July 10, 2017, which is 20
calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal
comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00
p.m. ET on Thursday, July 20, 2017, which is 10 calendar days from the
initial comments deadline.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
\10\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ``factual
information'').
\11\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department requests that any factual information the parties
consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted
during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the
investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department
and request permission to submit the additional information. All such
comments must be filed on the
[[Page 29025]]
records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically
using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing
Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\12\ An
electronically filed document must be received successfully in its
entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents exempted from the
electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in
paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room
18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by
the applicable deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and
Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046
(November 20, 2014) for details of the Department's electronic
filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011.
Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires
The Department will provide interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of fine denier PSF
to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This
information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics
of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant
costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate
product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product
characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is
not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-
comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful
commercial differences among products. In other words, although there
may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers
to describe fine denier PSF, it may be that only a select few product
characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical
characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the
order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching
products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important
physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics
last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in
developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product
characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on July 10,
2017. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on July 20,
2017. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed
electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of the
the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam less-than-fair-value
investigations.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a
statistically valid sampling method to poll the ``industry.''
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which
is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic
like product,\13\ they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a
separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's
determination is subject to limitations of time and information.
Although this may result in different definitions of the like product,
such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary
to law.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\14\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F.
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the
Petitions).
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope
of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information
submitted on the record, we have determined that fine denier PSF, as
defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we
have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like
product.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis, see
Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China (PRC AD
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry
Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions
Covering Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's
Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, (Attachment II); Antidumping Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Fine Denier Polyester Staple
Fiber from India (India AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II;
Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea (Korea AD
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; Antidumping Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Fine Denier Polyester Staple
Fiber from Taiwan (Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment
II; and Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Fine
Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
(Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These
checklists are dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this
notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents
filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room
B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petitions with reference to the
[[Page 29026]]
domestic like product as defined in the ``Scope of the
Investigations,'' in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry
support, the petitioners provided their own production of the domestic
like product in 2016.\16\ In addition, the petitioners provided a
letter of support from Palmetto Synthetics, LLC, stating that the
company supports the Petitions and providing its own production of the
domestic like product in 2016.\17\ The petitioners identify themselves
and Palmetto Synthetics, LLC as the companies constituting the U.S.
fine denier PSF industry and state that there are no other known
producers of fine denier PSF in the United States; therefore, the
Petitions are supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 3 and Exhibit I-2.
\17\ Id.
\18\ Id., at 2-3 and Exhibit I-1; see also General Issues
Supplement, at 3 and Exhibit I-S2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General
Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to the
Department indicates that the petitioners have established industry
support for the Petitions.\19\ First, the Petitions established support
from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50
percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as
such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to
evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).\20\ Second, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry
support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic
producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.\21\
Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory
criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions
account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support
for, or opposition to, the Petitions.\22\ Accordingly, the Department
determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic
industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist; India AD Initiation
Checklist; Korea AD Initiation Checklist; Taiwan AD Initiation
Checklist; and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\20\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC AD
Initiation Checklist; India AD Initiation Checklist; Korea AD
Initiation Checklist; Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist; and Vietnam AD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\21\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist; India AD Initiation
Checklist; Korea AD Initiation Checklist; Taiwan AD Initiation
Checklist; and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that
they are requesting that the Department initiate.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened
with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject
merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the
petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility
threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14-15 and Exhibit I-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression
or depression; lost sales and revenues; decreased production, capacity
utilization, and U.S. shipments; and declines in financial
performance.\25\ We have assessed the allegations and supporting
evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and
causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly
supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for
initiation.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14-31 and Exhibits I-5,
I-8, I-9, and I-10.
\26\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III,
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions
Covering Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's
Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Attachment III); India AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment III; Korea AD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment III; Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III;
and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to
initiate AD investigations of imports of fine denier PSF from the PRC,
India, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam. The sources of data for the
deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed
in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.
Export Price
For the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam, the petitioners
based the U.S. price on export price (EP) using average unit values
(AUVs) of publicly available import data.\27\ For the PRC and Taiwan,
the petitioners also based the U.S. price on EP using price quotes for
sales of fine denier PSF produced in, and exported from, the subject
county and offered for sale in the United States.\28\ Where applicable,
the petitioners made deductions from U.S. price for movement and other
expenses, consistent with the terms of sale.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist; India AD Initiation
Checklist; Korea AD Initiation Checklist; Taiwan AD Initiation
Checklist; and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.
\28\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist and Taiwan AD Initiation
Checklist.
\29\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist; India AD Initiation
Checklist; Korea AD Initiation Checklist; Taiwan AD Initiation
Checklist; and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
For India, Korea, and Taiwan, the petitioners provided home market
price information for fine denier PSF produced in, and offered for sale
in, each of these countries that was obtained through market
research.\30\ For all three of these countries, the petitioners
provided a declaration from a market researcher to support the price
information.\31\ Where applicable, the petitioners made deductions for
movement expenses, consistent with the terms of sale.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See India AD Initiation Checklist, Korea AD Initiation
Checklist, and Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist. For India, the
petitioners also provided constructed value data and calculated
margins based on a comparison between EP and constructed value. See
India AD Initiation Checklist. Because the petitioners provided
appropriate home market prices, we have relied on these prices as
the basis for normal value, pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the
Act, for purposes of initiation.
\31\ See Id.
\32\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Korea and Taiwan, the petitioners also provided information
that sales of fine denier PSF in the respective home markets were made
at prices below the cost of production (COP). With respect to Korea,
the petitioners calculated NV based on home market prices and
constructed value (CV).\33\ With respect to Taiwan, the petitioners
calculated NV based on CV.\34\ For further discussion of COP and NV
based on CV, see the
[[Page 29027]]
section ``Normal Value Based on Constructed Value'' below.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
\34\ See Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist.
\35\ In accordance with section 505(a) of the Trade Preferences
Extension Act of 2015, amending section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for
all of the investigations, the Department will request information
necessary to calculate the CV and COP to determine whether there are
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign
like product have been made at prices that represent less than the
COP of the product. The Department no longer requires a COP
allegation to conduct this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the PRC and Vietnam, the petitioners stated that
the Department has found these countries to be NME countries in prior
administrative proceedings in which they were involved.\36\ In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of
NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The
presumption of NME status for the PRC and Vietnam has not been revoked
by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the
initiation of these investigations. Accordingly, NV in both the PRC and
Vietnam is appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs) valued
in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section
773(c) of the Act.\37\ In the course of these investigations, all
parties, and the public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant
information related to the granting of separate rates to individual
exporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 4-5; see also Volume VI
of the Petition, at 4-5.
\37\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist and Vietnam AD Initiation
Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners claim that Mexico is an appropriate surrogate
country for the PRC, because it is a market economy country that is at
a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC, it is a
significant producer of comparable merchandise, and public information
from Mexico is available to value all material input factors.\38\ Based
on the information provided by the petitioners, we determine that it is
appropriate to use Mexico as a surrogate country for initiation
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Volume II of the Petition at 5-6 and Exhibit AD-CN-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners claim that India is an appropriate surrogate
country for Vietnam, because it is a market economy country that is at
a level of economic development comparable to that of Vietnam, it is a
significant producer of comparable merchandise, and public information
from India is available to value all material input factors.\39\ Based
on the information provided by the petitioners, we determine that it is
appropriate to use India as a surrogate country for initiation
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Volume VI of the Petition, at 5-6, Exhibit AD-VN-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments
regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly
available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled
date of the preliminary determination.
Factors of Production
Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by the
PRC and Vietnamese producers/exporters is not available, the
petitioners relied on the production experience of a domestic producer
of fine denier PSF in the United States as an estimate of Chinese and
Vietnamese manufacturers' FOPs.\40\ The petitioners valued the
estimated FOPs using surrogate values from Mexico for the PRC and
surrogate values from India for Vietnam and used the average POI
exchange rate to convert the data to U.S. dollars.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Volume II of the Petition at 6 and Exhibit AD-CN-3, and
PRC AD Supplement at 1 and Exhibit AD-CN-S3; see also Volume VI of
the Petition at 5 and Exhibit AD-VN-3, and Vietnam AD Supplement, at
1 and Exhibit A-VN-S3.
\41\ See Volume II of the Petition at 6 and Exhibits AD-CN-3 and
AD-CN-4; see also Volume VI of the Petition at Exhibit AD-VN-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost
of manufacturing (COM), selling, general, and administrative (SG&A)
expenses, financial expenses, and packing expenses. For Korea and
Taiwan, the petitioners calculated the COM based on the input factors
of production and usage rates from a U.S. producer of fine denier PSF.
The input factors of production were valued using publicly available
data on costs specific to Korea and Taiwan.\42\ Specifically, the
prices for raw material and packing inputs were based on Korean and
Taiwanese publicly available import and, for one Taiwanese input,
export data. Labor and energy costs were valued using publicly
available sources for Korea and Taiwan. The petitioners calculated
factory overhead, SG&A, and financial expenses based on the experience
of Korean and Taiwanese producers of comparable merchandise.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist and Taiwan AD Initiation
Checklist.
\43\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Korea and Taiwan, because certain home market prices fell below
the COP, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act,
as noted above, the petitioners calculated NVs based on CV.\44\
Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the COM, SG&A
expenses, financial expenses, packing expenses, and profit. The
petitioners calculated CV using the same average COM, SG&A expenses,
financial expenses, and packing expenses that were used to calculate
the COP.\45\ The petitioners relied on the financial statements of the
same producers that they used for calculating factory overhead, SG&A
expenses, and financial expenses to calculate the profit rates.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Id.
\45\ Id.
\46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to
believe that imports of fine denier PSF from the PRC, India, Korea,
Taiwan, and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United
States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in
accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping
margins for fine denier PSF for each of the countries covered by this
initiation are as follows: (1) PRC--88.07 to 103.06 percent; \47\ (2)
India--21.43; \48\ (3) Korea--37.28 to 45.23 percent; \49\ (4) Taiwan--
31.07 to 56.72 percent; \50\ and (5) Vietnam is 64.73 percent.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
\48\ See India AD Initiation Checklist.
\49\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
\50\ See Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist.
\51\ See Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations
Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions, we find that the
Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore,
we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of
fine denier PSF from the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair
value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary
determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this
initiation.
Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous
amendments to the AD and CVD law were made.\52\ The 2015 law does not
specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015,
the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced
the applicability dates for each amendment
[[Page 29028]]
to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the
Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.\53\
The amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are
applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and,
therefore, apply to these AD investigations.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
\53\ See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension
Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015).
\54\ Id. at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondent Selection
The petitioners named 12 companies in India,\55\ 31 companies in
Korea,\56\ and eight companies in Taiwan,\57\ as producers/exporters of
fine denier PSF. Following standard practice in AD investigations
involving market economy countries, in the event the Department
determines that the number of companies for any one market economy
country identified above is large, the Department intends to review
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of fine
denier PSF during the respective POIs under the appropriate Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States subheadings, and if it determines
that it cannot individually examine each company based upon the
Department's resources, then the Department will select respondents
based on that data. We intend to release CBP data under Administrative
Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information
protected by APO within five business days of the announcement of the
initiation of these investigations. Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR
351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on
the Department's Web site at https://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-4.
\56\ Id.
\57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties may submit comments regarding the CBP data and
respondent selection by 5:00 p.m. ET seven calendar days after the
placement of the CBP data on the record of these investigations.
Interested parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit
those comments five calendar days after the deadline for initial
comments.
Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An
electronically-filed document must be received successfully, in its
entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above.
If respondent selection is necessary, within 20 days of publication of
this notice, we intend to make our decisions regarding respondent
selection based upon comments received from interested parties and our
analysis of the record information.
With respect to the PRC and Vietnam, the petitioners named,
respectively, seven and four producers/exporters as accounting for the
majority of exports of fine denier PSF to the United States from the
PRC and Vietanm.\58\ In accordance with our standard practice for
respondent selection in AD cases involving NME countries, we intend to
issue quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires to producers/exporters of
merchandise subject to these NME investigations and, if necessary, base
respondent selection on the responses received. For these NME
investigations, the Department will request Q&V information from known
exporters and producers identified, with complete contact information,
in the Petitions. In addition, the Department will post the Q&V
questionnaire along with filing instructions on Enforcement and
Compliance's Web site at https://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Though the petitioners listed 88 ``known producers of fine
denier PSF from China'' in Volume I of the Petition at Exhibit I-4,
they clarified in the PRC-specific Volume II of the Petition that
``to the best of Petitioners' knowledge, fine denier PSF is produced
in China and exported to the United States'' by seven companies that
account for most or all U.S. imports during the POI. See Volume II
of the Petition at 2. See also Volume I of the Petitions at exhibit
I-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producers/exporters of fine denier PSF from the PRC and Vietnam
that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a
response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy of the Q&V
questionnaire from Enforcement & Compliance's Web site. The Q&V
response must be submitted by the relevant PRC exporters/producers no
later than 5:00 p.m. ET on July 5, 2017. All Q&V responses must be
filed electronically via ACCESS.
Separate Rates
In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation,
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.\59\
The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in
the PRC and Vietnam investigations are outlined in detail in the
application itself, which is available on the Department's Web site at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate
application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation
notice.\60\ Exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate
application and have been selected as mandatory respondents will be
eligible for consideration for separate-rate status only if they
respond to all parts of the Department's AD questionnaire as mandatory
respondents. The Department requires that companies from the PRC and
Vietnam submit a response to both the Q&V questionnaire and the
separate-rate application by the respective deadlines in order to
receive consideration for separate-rate status. Companies not filing a
timely Q&V response will not receive separate-rate consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin
05.1).
\60\ Although in past investigations this deadline was 60 days,
consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a), which states that ``the Secretary
may request any person to submit factual information at any time
during a proceeding,'' this deadline is now 30 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Combination Rates
The Department will calculate combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME
investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin
states:
{w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates
only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now
assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those producers
that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note,
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period
of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory
respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as
well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-
average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is
referred to as the application of ``combination rates'' because such
rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more
producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply
only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and
produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of
investigation.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been
provided to the governments of the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan, and
Vietnam via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to
provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter
named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
[[Page 29029]]
ITC Notification
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
732(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date
on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of fine denier PSF from the PRC, India, Korea,
Taiwan, and Vietnam are materially injuring or threatening material
injury to a U.S. industry.\62\ A negative ITC determination for any
country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect
to that country.\63\ Otherwise, these investigations will proceed
according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ A negative ITC determination for any country will result in
the investigation being terminated with respect to that country.
\63\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of Factual Information
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i)
Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence
submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available
information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence
placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than
factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires
any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which
subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
\64\ and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct
factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation
identifying the information already on the record that the factual
information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.\65\ Time limits for
the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301,
which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual
information being submitted. Interested parties should review the
regulations prior to submitting factual information in these
investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
\65\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the
expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as
otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request
will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the
time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are
due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be
considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date.
Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time
limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for
submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such
a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting
forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension
requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request
must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited
circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension
of time limits. Parties should review Extension of Time Limits; Final
Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to
submitting factual information in these investigations.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\66\
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are
in effect for company/government officials, as well as their
representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions
filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD
proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the
formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final
Rule.\67\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\67\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import
Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the
Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations
should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures
(e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed atn 19 CFR
351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2)
and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: June 20, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these investigations is fine denier
polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF), not carded or combed,
measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in diameter. The scope
covers all fine denier PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The
following products are excluded from the scope:
(1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3. decitex (more than 3
denier, inclusive) currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 5503.20.0045 and
5503.20.0065.
(2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component fiber with a
polyester core and an outer, polyester sheath that melts at a
significantly lower temperature than its inner polyester core
currently classified under HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.
Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheading
5503.20.0025. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
scope of the investigations is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2017-13380 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
