[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 112 (Thursday, June 10, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32497-32501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-13068]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-839]


Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review 
and Preliminary Notice of Intent To Revoke, in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of 2002-2003 administrative 
review, partial rescission of review, partial request for revocation of 
antidumping duty order, and preliminary notice of intent to revoke, in 
part.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber 
from Korea. The period of review is May 1, 2002, through April 30, 
2003. This review covers imports of certain polyester staple fiber from 
three producers/exporters.
    We have preliminarily found that sales of 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 (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: June 10, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Santoboni, Andrew McAllister or 
Jesse Cortes, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4194, (202) 482-1174 or (202) 482-3986.

Background

    On May 25, 2000, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published an antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber 
(``PSF'') from Korea. (See 65 FR 33807.) On May 1, 2003, the Department 
published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' 
of this order. (See 68 FR 23281). On May 30, 2003, Arteva Specialties 
S.a.r.l., d/b/a KoSa and Wellman, Inc. (``the petitioners'') requested 
administrative reviews of Daehan Synthetic Fiber Co., Ltd. 
(``Daehan''), Daeyang Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Daeyang''), East Young 
Co., Ltd. (``East Young''), Estal Industry Co., Ltd. (``Estal''), Keon 
Baek Co., Ltd. (``Keon Baek''), Geum Poong Corp. (``Geum Poong''), 
Huvis Corporation (``Huvis''), Mijung Industrial Co. (``Mijung''), 
Saehan Industrial Co. (``Saehan''), Samheung Co., Ltd. (``Samheung''), 
Sam Young Synthetics Co., Ltd. (``Sam Young'') and Sunglim Co., Ltd. 
(``Sunglim''). On May 30, 2003, Geum Poong, Sam Young, East Young, 
Daeyang, Mijung, Keon Baek, Saehan, and Huvis made similar requests for 
administrative reviews. Keon Baek also requested that the Department 
revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to Keon Baek. Also, on 
May 30, 2003, Stein Fibers, Ltd. (``Stein Fibers''), an interested 
party in this review, requested an administrative review of imports of 
the subject merchandise produced by Daeyang, East Young, Geum Poong, 
Huvis, Keon Baek, Mijung, and Sam Young. On July 1, 2003, the 
Department published a notice initiating the review for the 
aforementioned companies. (See 68 FR 39055). The period of review 
(``POR'') is May 1, 2002, through April 30, 2003.
    On July 10, 2003, we issued antidumping questionnaires in this 
review. On August 14, 2003, Mijung withdrew its request for review. 
Also, on August 14, 2003, Stein Fibers withdrew its request for 
administrative review of the shipments of Mijung. On September 3, 2003, 
the petitioners withdrew their requests for review of Daehan, Daeyang, 
East Young, Estal, Geum Poong, Mijung, Saehan, Samheung, Sam Young and 
Sunglim. On September 12, 2003, Daeyang, East Young, Geum Poong, and 
Sam Young withdrew their requests for review. Also, on September 12, 
2003, Stein Fibers withdrew its requests for administrative review of 
the shipments of Daeyang, East Young, Geum Poong, and Sam Young. See 
``Partial Rescission'' section, below.
    We received responses from Keon Baek, Saehan and Huvis 
(collectively, ``the respondents'') on September 12, 2003. As a result 
of certain below-cost sales being disregarded in the previous 
administrative review, on October 15, 2003, we instructed Huvis to 
respond to the cost questionnaire. On November 25, 2003, we received 
Huvis' response to the cost questionnaire.
    On October 24, and November 3, 2003, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.301(d)(2)(ii), the petitioners alleged that Keon Baek and Saehan, 
respectively, had made sales in the home market at prices below the 
cost of production (``COP'') during the POR. On October 29, and 
November 4, 2003, Keon Baek and Saehan, respectively, submitted 
objections to the petitioners' COP allegations on the basis that they 
were untimely filed. We accepted the allegations and found that the 
petitioners' allegations provided a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that sales in the home market by Keon Baek and Saehan had been 
made at prices below the COP. On November 11, and December 2, 2003, 
pursuant to section 773(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
effective January 1, 1995 (``the Act'') by the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act (``URAA''), we initiated investigations to determine whether Keon 
Baek and Saehan, respectively, made home market sales during the POR at 
prices below the COP (see Memorandum from Jesse Cortes to Susan 
Kuhbach, Director, AD/CVD Enforcement Office 1, ``Petitioners'' 
Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Keon Baek Co., 
Ltd.,'' dated November 11, 2003 and Memorandum from Julie Santoboni to 
Susan Kuhbach, Director, AD/CVD Enforcement Office 1, ``Petitioners'' 
Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Saehan Industries, 
Inc.,'' dated December 2, 2003, which are on file in the Department's 
Central Records Unit (``CRU'') in room B-099 of the main Department 
building). Accordingly, on November 17 and December 2, 2003, we 
notified Keon Baek and Saehan, respectively, that they must respond to 
section D of the antidumping duty questionnaire. We received responses 
to the cost questionnaire from Keon Baek and Saehan on December 8, 
2003, and January 22, 2004, respectively.
    In January, February and April 2004, we issued supplemental 
questionnaires to Huvis, Keon Baek and Saehan. We received responses to 
these supplemental questionnaires in January, February, March and May 
2004.
    On January 13, 2004, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act, we published a notice extending the time limit for the completion 
of the preliminary results in this case by 120 days (i.e., until no 
later than June 1, 2004). (See 69 FR 1971).
    Due to the unexpected emergency closure of the main Commerce 
building on Tuesday, June, 1, 2004, the Department has tolled the 
deadline for

[[Page 32498]]

these preliminary results by one day to June 2, 2004.

Scope of the Order

    For the purposes of this order, the product covered 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 this 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 this order. Also specifically excluded from this 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 under order is dispositive.

Partial Rescission

    As noted above, Mijung, Daeyang, East Young, Geum Poong, and Sam 
Young withdrew their requests for review, and Stein Fibers withdrew its 
request for review of the same companies. Additionally, the petitioners 
withdrew their requests for review of Daehan, Daeyang, East Young, 
Estal, Geum Poong, Mijung, Saehan, Samheung, Sam Young, and Sunglim. 
Because these withdrawals were timely filed and no other party 
requested a review of these companies, with the exception of Saehan, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) we are rescinding this review with 
respect to Daehan, Daeyang, East Young, Estal, Geum Poong, Mijung, 
Samheung, Sam Young, and Sunglim. We will instruct CBP to liquidate any 
entries from these companies during the POR and to assess antidumping 
duties at the rate that was applied at the time of entry.

Revocation

    The Department ``may revoke, in whole or in part'' an antidumping 
duty order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. 
While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department 
must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a 
procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This 
regulation requires, inter alia, that a company requesting revocation 
must submit the following: (1) A certification that the company has 
sold the subject merchandise at not less than normal value (``NV'') in 
the current review period and that the company will not sell at less 
than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold the 
subject merchandise in each of the three years forming the basis of the 
request in commercial quantities; and, (3) an agreement to 
reinstatement of the order if the Department concludes that the 
company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less 
than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1).
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), Keon Baek requested revocation of 
the antidumping duty order as it pertains to that company. According to 
19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), upon receipt of such a request, the Department 
may revoke an order, in part, if it concludes that (1) the company in 
question has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period 
of at least three consecutive years; (2) the continued application of 
the antidumping duty order is not otherwise necessary to offset 
dumping; and (3) the company has agreed to its immediate reinstatement 
in the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent 
to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV.
    We preliminarily find that the request from Keon Baek meets all of 
the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. With regard to the criteria of 
subsection 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our preliminary margin calculations 
show that Keon Baek sold PSF at not less than NV during the current 
review period. See dumping margins below. In addition, Keon Baek sold 
PSF at not less than NV during the 1999-2001 review period (i.e., Keon 
Baek's dumping margin was zero or de minimis). See Polyester Staple 
Fiber from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 67 FR 63616 (Oct. 15, 2002) (``1999-2001 PSF AR Final''), 
covering the period November 8, 1999, through April 30, 2001. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(d) we did not review the intervening 
review period.
    Based on our examination of the sales data submitted by Keon Baek, 
we preliminarily find that Keon Baek sold the subject merchandise in 
the United States in commercial quantities in each of the consecutive 
years cited by Keon Baek to support its request for revocation. See 
Keon Baek Calculation Memorandum. Thus, we preliminarily find that Keon 
Baek had zero or de minimis dumping margins for the requisite 
administrative review periods and sold in commercial quantities for 
those consecutive years. Also, we preliminarily find that application 
of the antidumping order to Keon Baek is no longer warranted for the 
following reasons: (1) The company had zero or de minimis margins for a 
period of at least three consecutive years; (2) the company has agreed 
to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department finds that it 
has resumed making sales at less than normal value; and (3) the 
continued application of the order is not otherwise necessary to offset 
dumping. Therefore, we preliminarily find that Keon Baek qualifies for 
revocation of the order on PSF pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) and 
that the order with respect to merchandise produced and exported by 
Keon Baek should be revoked. If these preliminary findings are affirmed 
in our final results, we will revoke this order in part for Keon Baek 
and, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we will terminate the 
suspension of liquidation for any of the merchandise in question that 
is entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
May 1, 2003, and will instruct CBP to refund any cash deposits for such 
entries.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in March 2004, we 
verified information provided by Keon Baek using standard verification 
procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's 
facilities, examination of relevant sales, cost and financial records, 
and selection of original documentation containing relevant 
information. The Department reported its findings from the sales and 
cost verification on May 26, 2004. See Memorandum to the File, Sales 
and Cost Verification Report--Keon Baek dated May 26, 2004 (Keon Baek 
Verification Report), which is on file in the CRU.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether the respondents' sales of PSF to the United 
States were made at less than NV, we compared export price (``EP'') to 
NV, as

[[Page 32499]]

described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of 
individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-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 Analysis'' section 
below.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced and sold by the respondents in the home market 
covered by the description in the ``Scope of the Order'' section, 
above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance with 
section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, 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 each respondent's volume 
of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its 
U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. (For further details, see the 
``Normal Value'' section, below.)
    We compared U.S. sales to sales made in the home market within the 
contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to 
the POR until two months after the POR. Where there were no sales of 
identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of 
trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the 
most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. 
Where there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise made in 
the ordinary course of trade in the home market to compare to U.S. 
sales, we compared U.S. sales to constructed value (``CV''). In making 
product comparisons, consistent with our final determination in the 
original investigation, we matched foreign like products based on the 
physical characteristics reported by the respondents in the following 
order: (1) Composition; (2) type; (3) grade; (4) cross section; (5) 
finish; and (6) denier (see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic 
of Korea, 65 FR 16880, 16881 (March 30, 2000)).

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 FOB, C&F, CIF, EDDP (ex-dock duty paid) FOB 
U.S. port, or EDDP CIF price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States. We made deductions, where appropriate, consistent with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, for the following movement expenses: inland 
freight from the plant to port of exportation, foreign brokerage and 
handling, wharfage, container tax, bill of lading charge, terminal 
handling charge, international freight, marine insurance, and U.S. 
customs duty.
    We increased EP, where appropriate, for duty drawback in accordance 
with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Huvis and Saehan provided 
documentation demonstrating that they have received duty drawback under 
the individual-rate system. In prior investigations and administrative 
reviews, the Department has examined the individual-rate system and 
found that the government controls in place generally satisfy the 
Department's requirements for receiving a duty drawback adjustment 
(i.e., that (1) the rebates received were directly linked to import 
duties paid on inputs used in the manufacture of the subject 
merchandise, and (2) there were sufficient imports to account for the 
rebates received). See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Partial Termination of Administrative Review: Circular 
Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea, 62 FR 55574, 
55577 (October 27, 1997). We examined the documentation submitted by 
Huvis and Saehan and confirmed that they met the Department's two-prong 
test for receiving a duty drawback adjustment. Accordingly, we are 
allowing the full duty drawback adjustment on all of Huvis' and 
Saehan's U.S. sales.
    Keon Baek received duty drawback under the fixed-rate system. The 
Department has found that the Korean fixed-rate duty drawback system 
does not sufficiently link import duties paid to rebates received upon 
export. Therefore, the fixed-rate system does not, in and of itself, 
meet the Department's criteria, i.e., that the rebates received were 
directly linked to import duties paid on inputs used in the manufacture 
of the subject merchandise, and that there were sufficient imports to 
account for the rebates received. See id. Furthermore, Keon Baek stated 
in its questionnaire response, and we verified, that it did not import 
any raw materials during the POR. Consequently, Keon Baek was unable to 
demonstrate that duty drawback which it received under the fixed-rate 
system met the Department's criteria for a duty drawback adjustment. 
Accordingly, for purposes of these preliminary results, we are not 
granting Keon Baek a duty drawback adjustment.
    Finally, for Keon Baek we incorporated the minor corrections to EP 
submitted at verification. See Keon Baek Verification Report at Exhibit 
1.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market

    In order 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 each 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 
sections 773(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the Act, because each 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 
all producers.

B. 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 (``LOT'') as the EP. Sales are made at different 
LOTs 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. Id.; 
see also 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 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the 
comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than 
the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market 
(i.e., the ``chain of distribution''),\1\ including selling 
functions,\2\ class of customer (``customer

[[Page 32500]]

category''), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The marketing process in the United States 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 respondents' sales occur 
somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we 
considered the narrative responses of each respondent to properly 
determine where in the chain of distribution the sale appears to 
occur.
    \2\ Selling functions associated with a particular chain of 
distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a 
particular 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. Other selling functions unique to specific companies were 
considered, as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 \3\), we consider the 
starting prices before any adjustments. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. 
United States, et al., 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 
(affirming this methodology).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on 
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A 
expenses, and profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the 
foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the 
EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different 
LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales at a different LOT 
in the comparison market, where available data show that the difference 
in LOT affects price comparability, we make an LOT adjustment under 
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    Huvis reported that it made direct sales to distributors and end 
users in both the home market and in the United States. Keon Baek made 
direct sales to end users in the home market and in the United States. 
Saehan made direct sales to distributors and end users in the home 
market and distributors and end users in the United States. Saehan also 
made sales to Korean trading companies for export to the United States. 
Each respondent has reported a single channel of distribution and a 
single level of trade in each market, and has not requested an LOT 
adjustment. We examined the information reported by each respondent 
regarding its marketing process for making the reported home market and 
U.S. sales, including the type and level of selling activities 
performed and customer categories. Specifically, we considered the 
extent to which sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory 
maintenance, and warranty services varied with respect to the different 
customer categories (i.e., distributors and end users) within each 
market and across the markets. Based on our analyses, we found a single 
level of trade in the United States, and a single, identical level of 
trade in the home market for all respondents. Thus, it was unnecessary 
to make a LOT adjustment for Saehan, Keon Baek or Huvis in comparing EP 
and home market prices.

C. Sales to Affiliated Customers

    Huvis made sales in the home market to an affiliated customer. To 
test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the 
starting prices of sales to the affiliated customer to those of 
unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct and 
indirect selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Where the price to 
the affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 
percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise to the 
unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the 
affiliated party were at arm's length. See Modification Concerning 
Affiliated Party Sales in the Comparison Market, 67 FR 69186 (November 
15, 2002). In accordance with the Department's practice, we only 
included in our margin analysis those sales to an affiliated party that 
were made at arm's length.

D. Cost of Production Analysis

    As discussed in the ``Background'' section above, there were 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that the respondents made 
sales of the subject merchandise in its comparison market at prices 
below the COP in accordance with section 773(b) of the Act.
1. Calculation of COP
    We calculated the COP on a product-specific basis, based on the sum 
of the respondents' costs of materials and fabrication for the foreign 
like product, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative 
(``SG&A'') expenses, including interest expenses, and the costs of all 
expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product in a condition 
packed ready for shipment in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the 
Act.
    We relied on COP information submitted in the respondents' cost 
questionnaire responses, except for the following adjustments.
    Huvis. We adjusted Huvis' reported cost of manufacturing to account 
for purchases of modified terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol from 
affiliated parties at non-arm's-length prices. See Memorandum from Team 
to the File, Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum--Huvis 
Corporation, dated June 2, 2004 (Huvis Calculation Memorandum), which 
is on file in the CRU.
    Keon Baek. We adjusted Keon Baek's net interest expense ratio to 
take into account a calculation error found at verification. See Keon 
Baek Verification Report. We also adjusted Keon Baek's general and 
administrative expense ratio to exclude the reversal of allowance of 
doubtful accounts. See Keon Baek Calculation Memorandum.
    Saehan. We adjusted Saehan's reported general and administrative 
(``G&A'') expenses ratio to include certain items that Saehan had 
omitted from its submitted calculation. See Memorandum from the Team to 
the File, Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Saehan 
Industries Inc., dated June 1, 2004 (Saehan Calculation Memorandum), 
which is on file in the CRU. We also did not include Saehan's 
adjustment to its net interest expense calculation that was reported in 
the SAS field INTEXADJ in its submitted cost file. See Saehan 
Calculation Memorandum.
2. Test of Home Market Prices
    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, in order to 
determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP. The 
prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, billing 
adjustments, discounts, commissions, warranties and indirect selling 
expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices less than their COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such sales were made (1) 
within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and (2) at 
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time.
3. Results of COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(1), where less than 20 percent of the 
respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, 
we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because we 
determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the 
respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, 
we determine that the below-cost sales represent ``substantial 
quantities'' within an extended period of time, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determine 
whether such sales were made at prices which would not permit recovery 
of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
    We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent 
of each of the respondent's home market sales were at prices less than 
the COP and, thus, the below-cost sales were made

[[Page 32501]]

within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. In 
addition, these sales were made at prices that did not provide for the 
recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we 
excluded these sales and used the remaining sales, if any, as the basis 
for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1).

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on the price to unaffiliated customers, and 
an affiliated customer where sales were made at arm's length. We made 
adjustments for differences in packing in accordance with sections 
773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. We also made adjustments, 
where appropriate, consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, 
for the following movement expense: inland freight from the plant to 
the customer. 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., credit expenses, bank charges, 
less charges, and letter of credit charges) and adding U.S. direct 
selling expenses (i.e., credit expenses, bank charges, letter of credit 
fees, bank document handling charges, term charges, collection charges, 
postage, and telegram charges).

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We find that the following dumping margins exist for the period May 
1, 2002, through April 30, 2003:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Weighted-average margin
           Exporter/manufacturer                     percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huvis Corporation.........................  1.54
Keon Baek Co., Ltd........................  0.07 (de minimis)
Saehan Industries, Inc....................  8.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 42 
days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday 
thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those 
raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. 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 35 days after the date of 
publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal 
briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument 
(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument 
with an electronic version included.
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of publication of these 
preliminary results.

Assessment Rates and Cash Deposit Requirements

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an 
assessment rate for each importer or customer of the subject 
merchandise. The Department will issue appropriate assessment 
instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final 
results of this review. Upon issuance of the final results of this 
administrative review, if any importer- or customer-specific assessment 
rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis (i.e., at or 
above 0.5 percent), the Department will instruct CBP to assess 
antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment 
rate to the entered quantity of the merchandise. For assessment 
purposes, we calculated importer- or customer-specific assessment rates 
for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping duties due for 
all U.S. sales to each importer or customer and dividing the amount by 
the total entered quantity of the sales to that importer or customer.
    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of PSF from Korea 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)(1) of the 
Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be the 
rate established in the final results of this administrative review 
(except no cash deposit will be required if its weighted-average margin 
is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (2) for merchandise 
exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but 
covered in the original less-than-fair-value investigation or a 
previous review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the most 
recent rate published in the final determination or final results for 
which the manufacturer or exporter received an individual rate; (3) if 
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, the previous 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; and (4) if neither the 
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous 
reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 7.91 percent, the ``all others'' 
rate established in Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of 
Korea: Notice of Amended Final Determination and Amended Order Pursuant 
to Final Court Decision, 68 FR 74552 (December 24, 2003).

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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.

    Dated: June 2, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-13068 Filed 6-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P