[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 46 (Thursday, March 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13879-13881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5623]



[[Page 13879]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-421-805]


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

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 2001.

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, Teijin Twaron BV 
(formerly Twaron Products V.o.F.) and Teijin Twaron USA, Inc. (formerly 
Twaron Products, Inc.) (collectively Twaron), and petitioner, E.I. 
DuPont de Nemours and Company. This review covers sales of this 
merchandise to the United States during the period June 1, 1999, 
through December 31, 1999, by Twaron. The results of the review 
indicate that Twaron made sales of the subject merchandise at less than 
NV for the above period.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the 
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure or Michael Grossman, 
AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 6, Group II, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-0984 or (202) 482-3146, respectively.
    The Applicable Statute and Regulations: Unless otherwise indicated, 
all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 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). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to 
the Department's regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR part 351 
(2000).

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 20, 2000, we published in the Federal Register (65 FR 
38242) a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' 
of this order covering the period June 1, 1999, through May 31, 2000.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), Twaron and petitioner 
requested that we conduct an administrative review for the 
aforementioned period. On July 31, 2000, the Department published a 
notice of ``Initiation of Antidumping Review'' (65 FR 46687). The 
Department is now conducting this administrative review pursuant to 
section 751 of the Act.
    On February 8, 2001, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) 
determined in the five-year (sunset) review that revoking the existing 
antidumping order on imports of PPD-T aramid from the Netherlands would 
not likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within 
a reasonably foreseeable time. As a result of the ITC's negative 
determination, the existing antidumping duty order on imports of this 
product will be revoked retroactive to January 1, 2000. Therefore, our 
review covers sales of this merchandise to the United States during the 
period June 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999.

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 of the United States (HTSUS) 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 HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience 
and Customs purposes. The written description of the scope remains 
dispositive.

Transactions Reviewed

    In accordance with section 751 of the Act, the Department is 
required to determine the normal value (NV) and export price (EP) or 
constructed export price (CEP) of each entry of subject merchandise, 
and the dumping margin for each such entry. See Section 751(a)(2)(A). 
Because there can be a significant lag between entry date and sale date 
for CEP sales, it has been the Department's practice to examine U.S. 
CEP sales during the period of review (POR). See Gray Portland Cement 
and Clinker from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 58 FR 48826, 48832 (September 20, 1993) (the 
Department did not consider ESP (now CEP) entries which were sold after 
the POR). The Court of International Trade (CIT) has upheld the 
Department's practice in this regard. See The Ad Hoc Committee of 
Southern California Producers of Gray Portland Cement v. United States, 
914 F. Supp. 535, 544-45 (CIT 1995).

Comparisons to NV

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products covered by the Scope of the Review which were sold by the 
respondent in the home market during the POR to be foreign like 
products for purposes of product comparisons to U.S. sales.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, where there were home 
market sales that passed the cost of production (COP) test, as 
discussed below, we compared the CEPs of individual U.S. transactions 
to the monthly weighted-average NV of the foreign like product. Where 
there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise in the home 
market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the 
constructed value (CV) of the product sold in the home market during 
the comparison period.

Constructed Export Price

    The Department based its margin calculation on CEP, as defined in 
sections 772(b), (c), and (d) of the Act, because all sales to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States took place after 
importation.
    We calculated CEP based on delivered prices and FOB warehouse 
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where 
appropriate, we reduced these prices to reflect rebates. In accordance 
with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted direct selling expenses, 
i.e., credit expenses, technical service expenses, warranty expenses, 
third-party payments, packing and repacking, and indirect selling 
expenses, including inventory carrying costs, which related to economic 
activity in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses 
(international freight, brokerage and handling, U.S. duties, domestic 
inland freight, U.S. inland freight, and

[[Page 13880]]

insurance) in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act. We also 
made deductions for further manufacturing in accordance with section 
772(d)(2) of the Act. Finally, we also deducted from CEP an amount for 
profit in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act.

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 the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign 
like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the Act, 
because Twaron'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 on home 
market sales.
    We calculated NV based on packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. We made adjustments for 
discounts. Where applicable, we deducted home market packing costs and 
added U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the 
Act, where applicable, we made deductions from the starting price for 
inland freight and inland insurance. In addition, we made a 
circumstance of sale adjustment for imputed credit expenses, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. 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. We based this adjustment on the difference 
in the variable costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and 
the subject merchandise.
    We derived the CEP offset amount from the amount of the indirect 
selling expenses on sales in the home market. See Level of Trade 
section of this notice. We limited the home market indirect selling 
expense deduction by the amount of the indirect selling expenses 
deducted from CEP pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act.

Cost of Production Analysis

    In the most recently completed administrative review of Twaron, we 
disregarded sales found to be below the 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 the POR. Thus, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, 
we initiated a COP investigation of Twaron in the instant review.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of the cost of 
materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like 
product, plus amounts for home market selling, general and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses and packing costs in accordance with 
section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We used the home market sales data and 
COP information provided by Twaron in its questionnaire responses.
    After calculating a weighted-average 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 permitted 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, and indirect selling 
expenses.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of 
Twaron's sales of a given model were at prices less than COP, we did 
not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we 
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) and (D) where 20 
percent or more of home market sales of a given product during the POR 
were at prices less than the COP, we found that such sales were made in 
substantial quantities within an extended period of time. Because the 
sales prices would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time, we disregarded those below-cost sales and used the 
remaining sales to determine NV in accordance with section 773(b)(1). 
For those models of PPD-T aramid for which there were no home market 
sales available for matching purposes, we compared CEP to CV.

Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of Twaron'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 Twaron 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 SG&A as reported 
in the CV portion of Twaron's questionnaire response. We used the U.S. 
packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales portion of Twaron's 
questionnaire response. We based selling expenses and profit on the 
information reported in the home market sales portion of Twaron'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 the home market 
selling expenses weighted by the respective quantities sold. For actual 
profit, we first calculated the difference between the home market 
sales value and home market COP for all home market sales in the 
ordinary course of trade, and divided the sum of these differences by 
the total home market COP for these sales. We then multiplied this 
percentage by the COP for each U.S. model to derive the profit amount. 
Finally, the CEP offset was derived in the same manner described in the 
Normal Value section of this notice.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade as the EP or CEP. The NV level of trade is that 
of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is 
based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and 
profit. For EP, the U.S. level of trade is also the level of the 
starting-price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. For 
CEP, the level of trade is based on the transaction between the 
exporter and the importer for which we construct the price.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade 
than EP or CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different level of trade, and the difference affects price 
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price 
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a 
level of trade adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the 
factory than the

[[Page 13881]]

CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference 
in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust 
NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). 
See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 
61731, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997) (South Africa Final).
    For purposes of our analysis, we examined information regarding the 
distribution systems in both the United States and the Dutch markets, 
including the selling functions, classes of customer, and selling 
expenses. Upon consideration of the above mentioned factors, the 
Department determined that there is one level of trade and one channel 
of distribution in the home market (direct to end users) and a 
different level of trade in the U.S. market (sales to an affiliated 
distributor). As such, we were unable to make product comparisons at 
the same level of trade nor were we able to calculate a level of trade 
adjustment. We have determined that Twaron's NV sales to end-users/
converters in the home market, as well as CV, are at a more advanced 
stage of distribution than CEP sales. As a result, the Department has 
preliminarily determined to grant Twaron an adjustment to NV in the 
form of a CEP offset.

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act, based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by 
the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. See Change in Policy Regarding 
Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 8, 1996). Section 773A(a) of 
the Act directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate in order to 
convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the daily rate 
involves a ``fluctuation.'' In accordance with the Department's 
practice, we have determined as a general matter that a fluctuation 
exists when the daily exchange rate differs from a benchmark by 2.25 
percent. See South Africa Final 62 FR 61734. The benchmark is defined 
as the rolling average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we 
determine that a fluctuation exists, we substitute the benchmark for 
the daily rate, in accordance with established practice. Therefore, for 
purposes of the current review, we have made currency conversions based 
on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales 
based on the methodology discussed above.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                   Exporter/manufacturer                       average
                                                                margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twaron.....................................................        1.03%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. See 
19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days 
after the date of publication, or the first workday thereafter. 
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs in this 
proceeding should provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five 
pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not 
later than 37 days after the date of publication. Further, we would 
appreciate it if parties submitting written comments would provide the 
Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such 
comments on diskette. The Department will publish a notice of the final 
results of this administrative review, which will include the results 
of its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at the 
hearing, within 120 days from the publication of these preliminary 
results.

Assessment Rate

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department shall determine, and 
the United States Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we 
have calculated importer-specific assessment rates by aggregating the 
dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales and dividing this amount 
by the estimated entered value (provided by respondents) of the same 
merchandise on an importer-specific basis. Upon completion of this 
review, the Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties on all entries during the POR by applying the 
assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise.
    Furthermore, as a result of the ITC's negative sunset review 
determination with regard to PPD-T aramid from the Netherlands, the 
Department will revoke the antidumping duty order for this case, 
effective January 1, 2000. We will instruct the Customs Service to 
terminate suspension of liquidation for all entries of subject 
merchandise made on or after January 1, 2000. Therefore, we will not 
issue cash deposit instructions to Customs based on the results of this 
review.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Effective January 20, 
2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration.

    Dated: February 28, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-5623 Filed 3-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P