[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 136 (Thursday, July 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38372-38373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18886]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-583-824]


Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan: Amended Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Amended Final Results of the Administrative Review of 
the Antidumping Duty Order on Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan.

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

SUMMARY: On June 16, 1998, the Department of Commerce published the 
final results in this administrative review (63 FR 32810). Subsequent 
to the publication of the final results, we received timely comments 
from E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. alleging a ministerial error. After 
analyzing the comments submitted, we agree and are amending our final 
results to correct this ministerial error. This amendment to the final 
results is published in accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(c) (April 1997).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 16, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith at (202) 482-1766, or 
Everett Kelly at (202) 482-4194, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20230.

APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS:  Unless otherwise indicated, all 
citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act''), as amended, are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act (``URAA''). Additionally, unless otherwise indicated all citations 
to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR Part 353 (April 1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 16, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published in the Federal Register the final results of the 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering the period 
of May 15, 1996, through April 30, 1997, on polyvinyl alcohol from 
Taiwan. See, Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 32810. Subsequently, on 
June 18, 1998, respondent E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (``DuPont'') 
submitted a ministerial error allegation. The petitioner, Air Products 
and Chemicals, Inc., did not submit comments concerning DuPont's 
clerical error allegation.
    A summary of the allegation along with the Department's response is 
discussed below. We are hereby amending our final results, pursuant to 
Section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.28(c), to reflect the 
correction of the error which is clerical in nature.

Scope of Review

    The product covered by this review is polyvinyl alcohol (``PVA''). 
PVA is a dry, white to cream-colored, water-soluble synthetic polymer. 
Excluded from this review are PVAs covalently bonded with 
acetoacetylate, carboxylic acid, or sulfonic acid uniformly present on 
all polymer chains in a concentration equal to or greater than two mole 
percent, and PVAs covalently bonded with silane uniformly present on 
all polymer chains in a concentration equal to or greater than one-
tenth of one mole percent. PVA in fiber form is not included in the 
scope of this review.
    The merchandise under review is currently classifiable under 
subheading 3905.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope 
is dispositive.

Amended Final Results of Review

    DuPont alleges that the Department made a ministerial error in 
calculating constructed export price (``CEP'') for its sales of further 
manufactured PVA. DuPont claims that the alleged ministerial error 
occurred during the process wherein the Department, after the 
preliminary results were published, changed the way it calculated CEP 
for DuPont's sales of further manufactured PVA. In the preliminary 
results, DuPont states, the Department calculated CEP the same way for 
sales of imported PVA as it did for sales of further manufactured PVA. 
In the preliminary results, we calculated CEP for sales of further 
manufactured PVA by deducting from the starting price discounts and 
rebates, movement expenses, and direct and indirect selling expenses 
associated with DuPont's economic activities occurring in the United 
States. We also deducted an amount for profit and further manufacturing 
costs (see Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results for E.I. 
duPont de Nemours & Co., dated February 2, 1998).
    In its case brief, the petitioner contended that our computer 
program failed to find comparable matches for PVA sold by DuPont in the 
United States and Australia because of the omission of a critical 
conversion factor. The petitioner indicated that since the further 
manufactured product is comprised of only a fraction of the imported 
PVA, the amount reported in DuPont's variable manufacturing costs for 
sales of further manufactured merchandise represented the costs for 
only that fraction of subject merchandise. Accordingly, the petitioner 
argued that the Department should adjust the reported variable 
manufacturing costs for U.S. sales of further manufactured merchandise 
by

[[Page 38373]]

stating the per-unit costs on the same basis as the variable 
manufacturing costs of the Australian sales (see Case Brief on behalf 
of Petitioner Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. at page 19). DuPont did 
not object to the petitioner's comment.
    Because further manufactured PVA comprises only a percentage of 
subject merchandise, we agreed with the petitioner that the prices, 
costs and expenses involved in the further manufactured product should 
be based on the same percentage of subject merchandise incorporated in 
the further manufactured sales at issue. Accordingly, in the final 
results, we adjusted the reported amounts of variable and total 
manufacturing costs, gross unit price, and CEP selling expenses for 
further manufactured PVA by a conversion factor (i.e., the value-added 
ratios reported in DuPont's Section E submission) in order to state the 
prices, costs, and expenses of further manufactured PVA on a per-unit 
basis (USD/lb) of imported PVA (see Calculation Memorandum for the 
Final Results for E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., dated June 9, 1998).
    While DuPont agrees that the Department was correct in altering its 
preliminary calculation of the CEP sales at issue, DuPont claims that 
because the further manufactured PVA comprises only a percentage of 
subject merchandise, the quantity involved in the further manufactured 
product should also have been adjusted to reflect the same percentage 
of subject merchandise incorporated in the further manufactured sales 
at issue. Instead, DuPont asserts that for the final results, rather 
than adjust the quantity to reflect the actual amount of PVA used, the 
Department converted prices from units of dollars per kilogram of 
further manufactured PVA to dollars per kilogram of imported PVA by 
dividing the unit prices of further manufactured PVA by the above-
mentioned value-added ratios (see Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 
Sheet, and Strip from the Republic of Korea; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 42835, 42845 (August 17, 
1995)(where the Department made the same type of adjustment to CEP 
calculation for sales of further manufactured merchandise). Thus, 
DuPont contends, the effect of multiplying these converted prices (in 
dollars per kilogram of the imported PVA) by the total quantity of 
further manufactured PVA was a significant overstatement of the 
quantity of merchandise subject to antidumping duties (i.e., subject 
merchandise) and, therefore, the amount of dumping. Thus, DuPont claims 
that the Department should make this adjustment to the reported 
quantity for its sales of further manufactured products.
    We agree that a ministerial error was made in our margin 
calculation as alleged by DuPont. Without adjusting the reported 
quantity for DuPont's sales of further manufactured PVA to reflect the 
amount of subject merchandise actually used in the further manufactured 
sales, we incorrectly multiplied the value of imported PVA by the 
quantity of further manufactured PVA when we should have used the 
percentage of subject merchandise incorporated in the further 
manufactured PVA. For a detailed discussion, see Memorandum to Louis 
Apple, Office Director, from Team, dated July 6, 1998. See also, 
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea: 
Amendment of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
63 FR 2200 (January 14, 1998), in which the Department amended its 
final results due to a ministerial error in calculating interest 
expense, which resulted in an overstatement of the interest expense 
factor and, consequently, of the dumping margin.
    Accordingly, we are amending our final results. We hereby determine 
the following weighted-average margin existed for the period May 15, 
1996, through April 30, 1997:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Original   Revised 
          Manufacturer/producer/exporter              margin     margin 
                                                    (percent)  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co.......................       9.46       4.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have 
calculated an importer-specific duty assessment rate based on the ratio 
of the total amount of AD duties calculated for the examined 
transactions in the POR to the total entered value of the same 
transactions. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of 
that particular importer made during the POR. The Department will issue 
appraisement instructions concerning the respondent directly to the 
U.S. Customs Service.
    The amended cash deposit requirement will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of amended final results of this 
administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act, at 
the cash deposit rate for DuPont indicated above.
    This deposit requirement shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    The amended final results of this administrative review are in 
accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.28. This 
amendment to the final results is published in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.28(c).

    Dated: July 9, 1998.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-18886 Filed 7-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P