[Federal Register: April 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 75)]
[Notices]
[Page 20907-20910]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17ap08-31]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-583-833
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber
from Taiwan. The period of review is May 1, 2006, through April 30,
2007. This review covers imports of certain polyester staple fiber from
one producer/exporter. We have preliminarily found that sales of the
subject merchandise have been made below normal value. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in this review are
requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and
(2) a brief summary of the argument. We will issue the final results
not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer or Richard Rimlinger,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0410
and (202) 482-4477, respectively.
Background
On May 25, 2000, the Department of Commerce (Department) published
an antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber (PSF) from
Taiwan. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea
and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the
Republic of Korea and Taiwan, 65 FR 33807 (May 25, 2000). On May 1,
2007, the Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review'' of this order. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 23796 (May 1,
2007). On May 31, 2007, Far Eastern Textile Limited (FET), a Taiwanese
producer and exporter of the subject merchandise, and Wellman Inc. and
Invista S.a.r.L. (collectively, the petitioners) requested an
administrative review of FET. On June 29, 2007, the Department
published a notice initiating an administrative review for PSF from
Taiwan. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part and Deferral of
Administrative Review, 72 FR 35690 (June 29, 2007). The period of
review (POR) is May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by the order is PSF. PSF is defined as
synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for
spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or
more in diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one
inch (25 mm) to five inches (127 mm). The merchandise subject to the
order may be coated, usually with a silicon or other finish, or not
coated. PSF is generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses,
ski jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and furniture. Merchandise
of less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at
subheading 5503.20.00.20 is specifically excluded from the order. Also
specifically excluded from the order are polyester staple fibers of 10
to 18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches (fibers used in
the manufacture of carpeting). In addition, low-melt PSF is excluded
from this order. Low-melt PSF is defined as a bi-component fiber with
an outer sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than
its inner core.
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in
the HTSUS at subheadings 5503.20.00.45 and 5503.20.00.65. Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is
dispositive.
Fair-Value Comparisons
To determine whether FET's sales of PSF to the United States were
made at less than normal value (NV), we compared export price (EP) to
NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections
of this notice.
Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), we compared the EP of individual U.S. transactions
to the monthly weighted-
[[Page 20908]]
average NV of the foreign like product where there were sales made in
the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of
Production'' section below.
Product Comparisons
We compared U.S. sales to monthly weighted-average prices of
contemporaneous sales made in the home market. We found contemporaneous
sales of identical merchandise in the home market for all U.S. sales.
Date of Sale
In its questionnaire responses, FET reported date of shipment as
the date of sale for its home-market and U.S. sales. FET has stated
that it permits home-market and U.S. customers to make order changes up
to the date of shipment. According to FET's descriptions, the sales
processes in the home market and to the United States are identical.
Thus, record evidence demonstrates that the material terms of sale are
not set before the date of invoice, which would normally result in
using the date of invoice as the date of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i).
Because the merchandise is always shipped on or before the date of
invoice, we are using the date of shipment as the date of sale. See,
e.g., Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 31283 (June 6, 2007)
(unchanged in final, 72 FR 69193, December 7, 2007), and Certain Cold-
Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 13170,
13172-73 (March 18, 1998).
Export Price
For sales to the United States, we calculated EP, in accordance
with section 772(a) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold prior
to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States and because
constructed export-price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We
calculated EP based on the cost, insurance, and freight (CIF) price to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we
made deductions, consistent with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, for
the following movement expenses: inland freight from the plant to the
port of exportation, brokerage and handling, harbor service fees, trade
promotion fees, containerization expenses, international freight, and
marine insurance. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Normal Value
Selection of Comparison Market
To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of PSF
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we
compared the respondent's home-market sales of the foreign like product
to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance
with section 773(a) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the
Act, because the respondent's aggregate volume of home-market sales of
the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate
volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the
home market was viable for comparison purposes.
Cost of Production
FET made sales at prices below the cost of production that we
disregarded in the most recently completed antidumping duty
administrative review of FET. See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From
Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
60476 (October 13, 2006). Because of this, there were reasonable
grounds to believe or suspect that the respondent made sales of the
foreign like product in its comparison market at prices below the cost
of production (COP) within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.
We calculated the COP on a product-specific basis, based on the sum
of the respondent's costs of materials and fabrication for the foreign
like product plus amounts for general and administrative (G&A)
expenses, interest expenses, and the costs of all expenses incidental
to preparing the foreign like product for shipment in accordance with
section 773(b)(3) of the Act.
We relied on COP information FET submitted in its cost
questionnaire responses except we adjusted FET's reported cost of
manufacturing to account for purchases of purified terephthalic acid
and mono ethylene glycol from affiliated parties at non-arm's-length
prices in accordance with the major-input rule pursuant to section
773(f)(3) of the Act.
On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP figures for the POR to the home-market sales of the foreign
like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine
whether these sales were made at prices below the COP. The prices were
exclusive of any applicable movement charges, packing expenses,
warranties, and indirect selling expenses. In determining whether to
disregard home-market sales made at prices below their COP, we
examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act,
whether such sales were made within an extended period of time in
substantial quantities and at prices which permitted the recovery of
all costs within a reasonable period of time.
We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of the
respondent's home-market sales were at prices below the COP and, in
addition, the below-cost sales were made within an extended period of
time in substantial quantities. In addition, these sales were made at
prices that did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable
period of time. Therefore, we excluded these sales and used the
remaining sales of the same product as the basis for determining NV in
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
Calculation of Normal Value
We calculated NV based on the price FET reported for home-market
sales to unaffiliated customers which we determined were within the
ordinary course of trade. We made adjustments for differences in
domestic and export packing expenses in accordance with sections
773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. We also made adjustments,
consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, for inland freight
from the plant to the customer and expenses associated with loading the
merchandise onto the truck to be shipped. In addition, we made
adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS), in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410. We made COS adjustments, where appropriate, by deducting
direct selling expenses incurred on home-market sales (i.e., imputed
credit expenses and warranties) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses
(i.e., imputed credit expenses and bank charges).
Level of Trade
Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the
same level of trade as the EP. Sales are made at different levels of
trade if they are made at different marketing stages (or their
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. See
19 CFR 351.412(c)(2); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From
South Africa,
[[Page 20909]]
62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997).
In order to determine whether a respondent made comparison-market
sales at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales,
we review the distribution system in each market (i.e., the chain of
distribution), including selling functions, class of customer (customer
category), and the level of selling expenses incurred for each type of
sale. The marketing process in the U.S. and comparison markets begins
with the producer and extends to the sale to the final user or
customer. The chain of distribution between the two may have many or
few links, and the respondent's sales occur somewhere along this chain.
In performing this evaluation, we consider the narrative responses of
the respondent to determine where in the chain of distribution the sale
appears to occur. Selling functions associated with a particular chain
of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a
particular market. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in
identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison-market sales (i.e.,
NV based on either home-market or third-country prices), we consider
the starting prices before any adjustments. See Micron Technology, Inc.
v. United States, et al., 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-15 (CAFC 2001) (affirming
this methodology).
When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the
foreign like product in the comparison market at the same level of
trade as the EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a
different level of trade in the comparison market. In comparing EP
sales at a different level of trade in the comparison market, where
available data show that the difference in level of trade affects price
comparability, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
FET reported two channels of distribution (i.e., direct sales to an
end-user and direct sales to a distributor) and a single level of trade
in the U.S. market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have
organized the common selling functions into four major categories:
sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory
and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty services. Because the
sales process and selling functions FET performed for selling to the
U.S. market did not vary by individual customers, the necessary
condition for finding they constitute different levels of trade was not
met. Accordingly, we determined that all of FET's U.S. sales
constituted a single level of trade.
FET reported a single channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales
to end-users) and a single level of trade in the home market. Because
the sales process and selling functions FET performed for selling to
home-market customers did not vary by individual customers, we
determined that all of FET's home-market sales constituted a single
level of trade.
Finally, because there is only one home-market level of trade, it
is not possible to calculate a level-of-trade adjustment. In addition,
because all U.S. sales were EP sales, no offset contemplated for
constructed export-price sales is appropriate.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a
dumping margin of 2.15 percent exists for FET for the period May 1,
2006, through April 30, 2007.
Public Comment
We will disclose the documents resulting from our analysis to
parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of
this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days
of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. If a hearing
is requested, the Department will notify interested parties of the
hearing schedule.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
results of this review. Because we intend to conduct a verification
prior to the issuance of the final results, we will notify interested
parties of the schedule for filing case briefs and rebuttal briefs
after we issue the verification report.
We intend to issue the final results of this review, including the
results of our analysis of issues raised in any submitted written
comments, within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary
results are issued.
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates
for merchandise subject to this review. We will issue instructions to
CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the
period of review produced by the respondent for which it did not know
its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances,
we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others
rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in
the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
Cash-Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of PSF from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of
this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the
Act: (1) the cash-deposit rate for FET will be the rate established in
the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise
exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but
covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash-deposit rate
will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most
recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the
manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) if
neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this
review, the cash-deposit rate will be 7.31 percent, the all-others rate
established in Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of
Korea and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From
the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, 65 FR 33807 (May 25, 2000).
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
[[Page 20910]]
Dated: April 10, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-8299 Filed 4-16- 08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-S