[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 82 (Thursday, April 29, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23053-23056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-10770]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-580-839, A-583-833]


Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Polyester 
Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 29, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Thirumalai and Marian Wells, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Room 3099, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4087 and (202) 482-
6309, respectively.

Initiation of Investigations

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    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 as amended (``the 
Act'') by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, 
unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's 
regulations are to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part 351 (1998).

The Petition

    On April 2, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
received a petition filed in proper form by E.I. DuPont de Nemours, 
Inc.; NanYa Plastics Corporation, America; Arteva Specialities 
S.a.r.l., d/b/a KoSa; Wellman, Inc.; and Intercontinental Polymers, 
Inc., hereinafter collectively referred to as ``the petitioners.'' 
(However, NanYa Plastics Corporation, America is not a petitioner in 
the Taiwan case.)
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, the petitioners 
allege that imports of certain polyester staple fiber (``polyester 
fiber'') from the Republic of Korea (``Korea'') and Taiwan 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 
both materially injuring and threatening further material injury to an 
industry in the United States.
    The Department finds that the petitioners filed this petition 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 that 
they account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the 
domestic like product and 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 (see 
``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition'' section, below).

Scope of the Investigations

    For purposes of these investigations, the product covered is 
certain polyester staple fiber. Certain polyester staple fiber 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 these investigations may be coated, usually with a silicon 
or other finish, or not coated. Certain polyester staple fiber 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) classified under the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at subheading 5503.20.00.20 
is specifically excluded from these investigations. Also specifically 
excluded from these investigations 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).
    The merchandise subject to these investigations is classified in 
the HTSUS at subheadings 5503.20.00.40 and 5503.20.00.60. Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description of the merchandise under investigation is 
dispositive.
    During our review of the petition, we discussed the scope with the 
petitioners to ensure that the scope language accurately reflects the 
product for which they are seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in 
the preamble to the Department's regulations (62 FR 27323), we are 
setting aside a period for parties to raise issues regarding product 
coverage. The Department encourages all parties to submit such comments 
by May 12, 1999. Comments should be addressed to Import 
Administration's

[[Page 23054]]

Central Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. The 
period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department 
with ample opportunity to consider all comments and consult with 
parties prior to the issuance of our preliminary determinations.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    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: (1) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(2) 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.
    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 the petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who account for 
production of 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, they do so for 
different purposes and pursuant to 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 the law.\1\ 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 subtitle.'' 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 petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 
639, 642-44 (CIT 1988); High Information Content Flat Panel Displays 
and Display Glass from Japan: Final Determination; Rescission of 
Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380-
81 (July 16, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The domestic like product referred to in the petition is the single 
domestic like product defined in the ``Scope of Investigations'' 
section, above. The Department has no basis on the record to find this 
definition of the domestic like product to be inaccurate. The 
Department, therefore, has adopted this domestic like product 
definition.
    In this case, the Department has determined that the petition and 
supplemental information contained adequate evidence of sufficient 
industry support; therefore, polling was not necessary. See Initiation 
Checklists dated April 22, 1999 (public versions on file in the Central 
Records Unit of the Department of Commerce, Room B-099). To the best of 
the Department's knowledge, the producers who support the petition 
account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product. Additionally, no person who would qualify as an interested 
party pursuant to section 771(b)(A), (C), (D), (E) or (F) of the Act 
has expressed opposition on the record to the petition. Accordingly, 
the Department determines that this petition is filed on behalf of the 
domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

Export Price and Normal Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which our decision to initiate these 
investigations is based. Should the need arise to use any of this 
information in our preliminary or final determinations for purposes of 
facts available under section 776 of the Act, we may re-examine the 
information and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate.

Korea

    The petitioners identified Daehan Synthetic Fiber Co., Ltd. (also 
known as Tae Kweng); Kohap, Ltd.; Saehan Industries, Inc.; Sam Yang 
Co.; and SK Chemicals as producers and exporters of polyester fiber to 
the United States. The petitioners have based U.S. price on export 
price (``EP'') because information obtained by the petitioners 
indicates that Korean producers sold polyester fiber to unaffiliated 
importers in the United States. As a basis for its EP calculation, the 
petitioners have used multiple offers for sale of the subject 
merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States between 
December 1998 and February 1999. The terms of some of these sales 
offers were FOB whereas other sales were offered on a delivered basis. 
Where applicable, the petitioners calculated a net U.S. price by 
subtracting the estimated cost of foreign inland freight to the port of 
export, using information obtained through foreign market research. 
Where applicable, the petitioners then subtracted ocean freight 
expenses, which were calculated as the difference between the CIF and 
the U.S. customs values reported in the U.S. import statistics for 
January through December 1998, and estimated U.S. inland freight costs. 
U.S. import duties were estimated by the petitioners using the HTSUS 
schedule and then subtracted from the prices. Where applicable, the 
petitioners also subtracted amounts for U.S. merchandise processing 
fees and U.S. harbor maintenance fees in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. (The Department corrected the petitioners' 
calculations of U.S. import duties, U.S. merchandise processing fees, 
and U.S. harbor maintenance fees.) Finally, the petitioners calculated 
imputed credit expenses based on average payment terms of 60 days and 
the average U.S. prime lending rate for December 1998, as published in 
the International Financial Statistics, and added this amount to normal 
value (``NV'').
    The petitioners obtained gross unit prices and multiple offers for 
sale in Korea during the period contemporaneous with the U.S. sales 
offers for products which were either identical or similar to those 
sold to the United States. The petitioners used the market research 
information which indicated that the volume of home market sales is 
sufficient to form a basis for normal value. Since the home market 
prices and offers for sale were based on delivered terms, the 
petitioners subtracted the estimated transportation costs to home 
market customers. Next, the petitioners deducted a discount offered to 
Korean customers who pay cash. The resulting home market net prices 
were then converted from kilograms to pounds and to U.S. dollar prices 
using the official exchange rate in effect for the month of the 
comparison U.S. sale. Lastly, the petitioners added the imputed credit 
expenses incurred in the U.S. market (see above). The petitioners did 
not adjust for packing because they assumed that packing costs were the 
same for the home market and for U.S. sales.

Taiwan

    The petitioners identified Far Eastern Textile Ltd. (``Far 
Eastern''); Nan Ya Plastics Corporation; Shinkong Synthetic Fibers 
Corp.; and Tuntex Distinct Corp. as producers and

[[Page 23055]]

exporters of polyester fiber to the United States. The petitioners have 
based U.S. price on export price (``EP'') because information obtained 
by the petitioners indicates that Taiwanese producers sold polyester 
fiber to unaffiliated importers in the United States. As a basis for 
its EP calculation, the petitioners have used multiple offers for sale 
of the subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States between December 1998 and February 1999. The terms of some of 
these sales offers were FOB Taiwan whereas other sales were offered on 
a delivered basis. The petitioners calculated net U.S. prices by 
subtracting estimated costs incurred to transport polyester fiber from 
the port of export to the U.S. port, and from the U.S. port to the 
customer's location in the U.S., where applicable. No adjustment for 
transportation costs from the factory to the port of export were made 
because this information was not available to the petitioners. The 
petitioners deducted international freight and insurance costs which 
were calculated as the difference between the CIF and the U.S. customs 
values reported in the U.S. import statistics for January through 
December 1998. The petitioners also subtracted U.S. import duties, U.S. 
harbor maintenance fees, and U.S. merchandise processing fees, where 
applicable. (The Department corrected the petitioners' calculations of 
U.S. import duties, U.S. harbor maintenance fees, and U.S. merchandise 
processing fees.) The petitioners calculated imputed credit expenses 
based on average payment terms reported in the market research report 
and the average U.S. prime lending rate for the month of the U.S. sales 
as published in the International Financial Statistics. The petitioners 
adjusted for the difference in imputed credit expenses by subtracting 
home market credit expenses and by adding U.S. imputed credit expenses 
to the home market prices found through foreign market research.
    With respect to NV, the petitioners provided information on sales 
prices in Taiwan and constructed value (``CV'') for one type of 
polyester staple fiber. The petitioners received prices for actual 
recent sales or offers for sale to unaffiliated customers in Taiwan by 
the four Taiwanese companies which produce subject merchandise. The 
petitioners used market research information which indicated that the 
volume of home market sales is sufficient to form a basis for normal 
value. Since the home market prices were inclusive of delivery charges, 
the petitioners subtracted estimated delivery costs. The petitioners 
used average inland freight costs incurred to deliver in the U.S. as a 
proxy for delivery costs. We accepted this proxy because this 
information was reasonably available to the petitioners and this is a 
conservative methodology since average delivery distances are greater 
in the U.S. and delivery costs are determined by weight and distance. 
The petitioners did not adjust for packing because they assumed that 
packing costs were the same for the home market and for U.S. sales. The 
petitioners converted home market prices and quantities to U.S. dollars 
and to pounds, respectively.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of polyester fiber from Korea and Taiwan are 
being, or are likely to be, sold at less than fair value. Based on a 
comparison of EP to home market prices, the petitioners' calculated 
dumping margins range from 48.14 to 84.03 percent for Korea and from 
8.03 to 23.62 percent for Taiwan. In addition, for Taiwan, the 
estimated dumping margin based on a comparison of EP to CV is 70.70 
percent.

Allegation of Sales Below Cost in Taiwan

    Pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, the petitioners alleged that 
home market sales of the foreign like product in Taiwan were made at 
prices below the cost of production (``COP'') and requested that the 
Department initiate a country-wide investigation of sales below cost. 
The petitioners calculated COP for six denier, non-conjugated and non-
silicon coated polyester fiber by using the CV for one company, Far 
Eastern. According to the petitioners, six denier is one of the most 
common denier categories and is, therefore, representative of the 
foreign like product to be compared to subject merchandise sold in the 
United States. In addition, petitioners selected Far Eastern because it 
is the largest and, hence, probably the most efficient, producer of 
polyester fiber in Taiwan and accounted for the largest share of 
exports to the United States. Based on the foregoing, costs for Far 
Eastern, according to petitioners, are representative of the costs of 
other producers of polyester fiber.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost 
of manufacturing (``COM''), selling, general and administrative 
expenses (``SG&A'') and packing. The petitioners used the product-
specific costs reported by a U.S. producer as a starting point to 
calculate the COM. The petitioners made adjustments to the U.S. 
producer's manufacturing cost to account for known differences in costs 
between the United States and Taiwan. To calculate SG&A, the 
petitioners took the ratio of SG&A to the costs of sales from Far 
Eastern's 1997 audited financial statements and applied this ratio to 
the calculated COM. In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, the 
petitioners added an amount for profit calculated from the 1997 audited 
financial statements of Far Eastern. The petitioners then compared this 
cost to Far Eastern's home market price for this product as reported in 
the market research report and found that the home market price was 
below the COP.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petition alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, and is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise 
sold at less than NV. The petitioners explained that the industry's 
injured condition is evident in the declining trends in net operating 
profits and income, net sales volumes and values, profit to sales 
ratios, and capacity utilization. The allegations of injury and 
causation are supported by relevant evidence including U.S. Customs 
import data, lost sales, and pricing information. The Department 
assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material 
injury and causation and determined that these allegations are 
supported by accurate and adequate evidence and meet the statutory 
requirements for initiation. See Initiation Checklists.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based upon our examination of the petition, we have found that the 
petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, 
we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether 
imports of polyester fiber from Korea and Taiwan are being, or are 
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless 
this deadline is extended, we will make our preliminary determinations 
by September 9, 1999.

Initiation of Cost Investigations

    Pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, petitioners provided 
information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
sales in the home market of Taiwan were made at prices below the COP 
and, accordingly, requested the Department to conduct a country-wide 
sales-below-COP

[[Page 23056]]

investigation in connection with the requested antidumping 
investigation in Taiwan. The Statement of Administrative Action 
(``SAA''), accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, vol. 1 at 833 
(1994), states that an allegation of sales below COP need not be 
specific to individual exporters or producers. The SAA also states that 
``Commerce will consider allegations of below-cost sales in the 
aggregate for a foreign country, just as Commerce currently considers 
allegations of sales at less than fair value on a country-wide basis 
for purposes of initiating an antidumping investigation.'' Id.
    Further, the SAA provides that ``new section 773(b)(2)(A) retains 
the current requirement that Commerce have `reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect' that below-cost sales have occurred before 
initiating such an investigation.'' Reasonable grounds will ``exist 
when an interested party provides specific factual information on costs 
and prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the 
foreign market in question are at below-cost prices.'' Id. Based upon 
the comparison of the price from the petition for the representative 
foreign like product to its adjusted costs of production, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we find the existence of 
``reasonable grounds to believe or suspect'' that sales of the foreign 
like product in Taiwan were made below COP. Accordingly, the Department 
is initiating the requested country-wide cost investigation.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 
public version of the petition has been provided to the representatives 
of the Governments of Korea and Taiwan. We will attempt to provide a 
copy of the public version of the petition to the exporters named in 
the petition.

International Trade Commission Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation of these investigations, 
as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will determine by May 17, 1999 whether there is a 
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured, or is threatened with material injury by reason of 
imports of polyester fiber from Korea and Taiwan. A negative ITC 
determination will result in the investigation being terminated; 
otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and 
regulatory time limits.
    This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i) of the 
Act.

    Dated: April 22, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-10770 Filed 4-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P