[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15766-15769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8683]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-421-805]


Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide From 
the Netherlands; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative 
Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene 
Terephthalamide from the Netherlands.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aramid fiber 
formed of poly para-phenylene terephthalamide (PPD-T aramid) from the 
Netherlands in response to requests by respondent, Akzo Nobel Fibers 
Inc. and Aramid Products V.o.F. (Akzo) and petitioner, E.I. du Pont de 
Nemours and Company. This review covers sales of this merchandise to 
the United States

[[Page 15767]]
during the period December 16, 1993 through May 31, 1995.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value (NV). Interested parties are invited to comment on these 
preliminary results. Parties who submit argument are requested to 
submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Little or Maureen Flannery, 
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4733.

Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in 
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping 
duty order on PPD-T aramid from the Netherlands on June 24, 1994 (59 FR 
32678). On June 6, 1995, we published in the Federal Register (60 FR 
29821) a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on PPD-T aramid from the Netherlands 
covering the period December 16, 1993 through May 31, 1995.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1), Akzo and petitioner 
requested that we conduct an administrative review of Akzo's sales. We 
published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty 
administrative review on July 14, 1995 (60 FR 36260). The Department is 
conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of 
the Act.

Scope of Review

    The products covered by this review are all forms of PPD-T aramid 
from the Netherlands. These consist of PPD-T aramid in the form of 
filament yarn (including single and corded), staple fiber, pulp (wet or 
dry), spun-laced and spun-bonded nonwovens, chopped fiber and floc. 
Tire cord is excluded from the class or kind of merchandise under 
review. This merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 5402.10.3020, 5402.10.3040, 
5402.10.6000, 5503.10.1000, 5503.10.9000, 5601.30.0000, and 
5603.00.9000. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
    This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of PPD-T aramid, Akzo, 
and the period December 16, 1993 through May 31, 1995.

Constructed Export Price

    The Department based its margin calculation on constructed export 
price (CEP), as defined in section 772(b) of the Act, because the 
subject merchandise was first sold to unrelated purchasers after import 
into the United States.
    We based CEP on packed, ex-U.S. warehouse and delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. The Department made the 
following adjustments to prices used to establish CEP, pursuant to 
section 772(c) of the Act. The price was increased for repacking 
pursuant to section 772(c)(1) and reduced for movement expenses 
(international freight, brokerage and handling, U.S. duties, domestic 
inland freight and insurance) pursuant to section 772(c)(2). The price 
used to establish CEP was also reduced by an amount for the following 
expenses incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United 
States pursuant to section 772(d)(1): discounts, rebates, credit, 
warranty, technical services, and inventory carrying costs and other 
indirect selling expenses. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3), the price was 
further reduced by an amount for profit to arrive at the CEP.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared Akzo's volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because Akzo's 
aggregate volume of the home market sales of the foreign like product 
was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for 
the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market provides a 
viable basis for calculating NV for Akzo, pursuant to section 
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
    On January 31, and February 7, 1996, petitioner submitted comments 
identifying its concerns regarding Akzo's cost calculations. In a 
letter dated February 28, 1996, Akzo commented on petitioner's 
submissions, and provided explanations for each of petitioner's points. 
In order to properly examine the cost issue, we would require that Akzo 
provide substantial additional cost information, including data from 
the period of investigation. Moreover, we would need time to analyze 
and verify this information. Given the above requirements, we have 
determined that petitioner did not provide its comments on the issue in 
time for the Department to adequately examine the issue in this review.

Cost of Production Analysis

    In the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of Akzo, we 
disregarded sales found to be below the cost of production (COP). 
Therefore, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the 
Department has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales 
below the COP may have occurred during this review period. Thus, 
pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, in this review we initiated a 
COP investigation of Akzo.
    Before making any fair value comparisons, we conducted the COP 
analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

    We calculated the COP based on the sum of Akzo's cost of materials 
and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus 
amounts for home market selling, general, and administrative expenses 
(SG&A) and packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the 
Act. We relied on the home market sales and COP information provided by 
Akzo in its questionnaire responses.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

    After calculating COP, we tested whether home market sales of PPD-T 
aramid were made at prices below COP within an extended period of time 
in substantial quantities, and whether such prices permit recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared model-
specific COP to the reported home market prices less any applicable 
movement charges, discounts, rebates, and direct and indirect selling 
expenses.

C. Results of COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of 
Akzo's sales of a given model were at prices less than COP, we did not 
disregard any

[[Page 15768]]
below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-
cost sales were not made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 
percent or more of home market sales of a given product were at prices 
less than the COP, we disregarded only the below-cost sales where such 
sales were found to be made within an extended period of time (in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act) and at prices which 
would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time (in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act). We found 
that, for certain types of PPD-T aramid, more than 20 percent of the 
home market sales were sold at below-cost prices within the period of 
review in substantial quantities. We therefore find that these below-
cost sales were made in substantial quantities within an extended 
period of time, and were at prices which did not permit recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time. As a result, we excluded 
these below cost sales and used the remaining above-cost sales as the 
basis of determining NV if such sales existed, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1). For those models of PPD-T aramid for which there 
were no above-cost sales available for matching purposes, we compared 
CEP to constructed value (CV).

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2), we compared the CEPs of individual 
transactions to the monthly weighted-average price of sales of the 
foreign like product where there was an adequate number of sales at 
prices above COP, as discussed above. We based NV on packed, ex-factory 
or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. We 
made adjustments, where applicable, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6) of the Act. Where applicable, we made adjustments to home 
market price for discounts, rebates, inland freight and insurance. To 
adjust for differences in circumstances of sale between the home market 
and the United States, we reduced home market price by an amount for 
home market credit expenses. In order to adjust for differences in 
packing between the two markets, we increased home market price by U.S. 
packing costs and reduced it by home market packing costs. Prices were 
reported net of value added taxes (VAT) and, therefore, no deduction 
for VAT was necessary. We made adjustments, where appropriate, for 
physical differences in merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.

Level of Trade/CEP Offset

    As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the 
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, at 829-831, to the extent practicable, the Department 
will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade as the U.S. 
sale. When the Department is unable to find sale(s) in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade as in the U.S. sale(s), the 
Department may compare sales in the U.S. and foreign markets at a 
different level of trade.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, if we compare a 
U.S. sale at one level of trade to NV sales at a different level of 
trade, the Department will adjust the NV to account for the difference 
in level of trade if two conditions are met. First, there must be 
differences between the actual selling functions performed by the 
seller at the level of trade of the U.S. sale and at the level of trade 
of the NV sale. Second, the differences must affect price comparability 
as evidenced by a pattern of consistent price differences between sales 
at the different levels of trade in the market in which NV is 
determined. When CEP is applicable, section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act 
establishes the procedures for making a CEP offset when: (1) NV is at a 
different level of trade, and (2) the data available do not provide an 
appropriate basis for a level of trade adjustment from the U.S. sale. 
Also, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B), to qualify for a CEP 
offset, the level of trade in the home market must also constitute a 
more advanced stage of distribution than the level of trade of the CEP 
sale.
    Akzo reported one level of trade and one channel of distribution in 
the home market (direct to end users/converters). For the U.S. market, 
Akzo reported that all sales were made on a CEP basis. The level of 
trade of the U.S. sales is determined by the adjusted CEP rather than 
the starting price. The adjusted CEP sales do not reflect the selling 
functions to end users/converters, such as customer sales contacts, 
technical services, and inventory maintenance. The home market sales 
reflect these additional selling functions performed for direct sales 
to end users/converters. Therefore, the selling functions performed for 
CEP sales are sufficiently different than for home market sales to 
consider CEP sales and home market sales to be at different levels of 
trade.
    Because we compared these CEP sales to home market sales at a 
different level of trade, we examined whether a level of trade 
adjustment may be appropriate. In this case, Akzo only sold at one 
level of trade in the home market; therefore, there is no basis upon 
which Akzo can demonstrate a consistent pattern of price differences 
between levels of trade. Further, we do not have information which 
would allow us to examine pricing patterns on Akzo's sales of other 
products and there are no other respondents or other record information 
on which such an analysis could be based.
    Because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for 
making a level of trade adjustment but the level of trade in the home 
market is a more advanced stage of distribution than the level of trade 
of the CEP sale, a CEP offset is appropriate. Akzo has claimed a CEP 
offset. We applied the CEP offset to NV or CV, as appropriate.
    We based the CEP offset amount on the amount of the home market 
indirect selling expenses. We limited the home market indirect selling 
expense deduction by the amount of the indirect selling expenses 
incurred on sales to the United States, in accordance with section 
772(d)(1)(D).

Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of Akzo's cost of materials and fabrication employed 
in producing the subject merchandise, SG&A and profit incurred and 
realized in connection with production and sale of the foreign like 
product, and U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 
773(e)(2)(A), we based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred and 
realized by Akzo in connection with the production and sale of the 
foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption 
in the foreign country. We used the costs of materials, fabrication, 
and G&A as reported in the CV portion of Akzo's questionnaire response. 
We used the U.S. packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales portion of 
Akzo's questionnaire response. We based selling expenses and profit on 
the information reported in the home market sales portion of Akzo's 
questionnaire response. See Certain Pasta from Italy; Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination, 61 FR 1344, 1349 (January 19, 
1996). For selling expenses, we used the average of above-cost per-unit 
home market selling expenses weighted by the total quantity sold. For 
actual profit, we first calculated the difference between the home 
market sales value and home market COP for all above-cost home market 
sales, and divided the sum of these differences by

[[Page 15769]]
the total home market COP for these sales. We then multiplied this 
percentage by the COP for each U.S. model to derive an actual profit.
    We derived the CEP offset amount from the amount of the indirect 
selling expenses on above-cost sales in the home market. We limited the 
home market indirect selling expense deduction by the amount of the 
indirect selling expenses incurred on sales to the United States.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our comparison of CEP and NV, we preliminarily 
determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Manufacturer/exporter                   Period         Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akzo......................................     12/16/93-5/31/95    21.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of 
the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice, 
or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case 
briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of 
publication. Parties who submit argument are requested to submit with 
the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of 
the argument. The Department will publish a notice of final results of 
this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such comments. '
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion 
of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions 
directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of PPD-T aramid from the Netherlands entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit 
rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final 
results of this review; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in 
this review, or the original LTFV 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; and (3) for all 
other producers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the cash deposit 
rate shall be 66.92 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the 
LTFV investigation (59 FR 32678, June 24, 1994).
    These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 29, 1996.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary, for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-8683 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P