[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 200 (Monday, October 18, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61341-61344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-2705]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-839]


Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination To 
Revoke the Order in Part

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

SUMMARY: On June 10, 2004, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published the preliminary results of the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber 
from the Republic of Korea (``Korea''). The period of review is May 1, 
2002, through April 30, 2003. We gave interested parties an opportunity 
to comment on the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the 
comments received and an examination of our calculations, we have made 
certain changes for the final results. The final weighted-average 
dumping margins for the three manufacturers/exporters are listed below 
in the ``Final Results of the Review'' section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 18, 2004.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Since the publication of the preliminary results in this review 
(see Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea; Preliminary Results of

[[Page 61342]]

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of 
Review, 69 FR 32497 (June 10, 2004) (``Preliminary Results'')), the 
following events have occurred.
    We invited parties to comment on the preliminary results of the 
review. On June 10, 2004, we granted a request submitted by Saehan for 
an extension to file rebuttal briefs until July 19, 2004. On July 12, 
2004, Arteva Specialties S.a.r.l., d/b/a KoSa and Wellman, Inc. (``the 
petitioners''), and the respondents Saehan Industries, Inc. 
(``Saehan'') and Huvis Corporation (``Huvis'') filed case briefs. On 
July 19, 2004, Huvis filed a rebuttal brief. A public hearing was held 
at the request of Saehan on August 3, 2004.

Scope of the Order

    For the purposes of this order, the product covered is certain 
polyester staple fiber (``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 under 
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.

Period of Review

    The period of review (``POR'') is May 1, 2002, through April 30, 
2003.

Verification

    As stated in the Preliminary Results and provided in section 782(i) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), we verified 
information provided by Keon Baek Co. Ltd. (``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.

Determination To Revoke

    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. Consistent 
with the Preliminary Results, we continue to find that the request from 
Keon Baek meets all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1).
    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.
    As explained in these final results, our calculations show that 
Keon Baek sold PSF at not less than NV during the current review 
period. 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 (October 15, 2002) 
(``1999-2001 PSF AR Final''), covering the period November 8, 1999, 
through April 30, 2001. As permitted by 19 CFR 351.222(d), we did not 
review the intervening review period.
    Moreover, based on our examination of the sales data submitted by 
Keon Baek, we 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 
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 Department's Central Records Unit (``CRU'') in room 
B-099 of the main Department building.
    Finally, we find that application of the antidumping order to Keon 
Baek is no longer warranted for the following reasons: (1) As noted 
above, 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 NV; and (3) the continued application of the 
order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping.
    Therefore, we determine 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 subject merchandise produced and exported by Keon Baek, 
should be revoked. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we are 
terminating the suspension of liquidation for subject merchandise 
produced and exported by Keon Baek that was entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after May 1, 2003, and will instruct 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to refund with interest 
any cash deposits for such entries.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum'' 
from Jeffrey A. May, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, dated October 8, 2004 (Decision Memorandum), which is 
hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix 
is a list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have 
responded in the

[[Page 61343]]

Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete discussion of all 
issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in 
this public memorandum which is on file in the Department's CRU. In 
addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed 
directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper 
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in 
content.

Fair Value Comparisons

    We calculated export price (``EP''), NV, and the cost of production 
(``COP'') based on the same methodologies used in the Preliminary 
Results with the following exceptions:
     For Saehan, we have adjusted the general and 
administrative expense ratio. See Memorandum from Julie H. Santoboni to 
File, ``Final Results Calculation Memorandum for Saehan Industries, 
Inc.,'' dated October 8, 2004 (Saehan Calculation Memorandum); see also 
Decision Memorandum, at Comments 1-3.
     For Saehan, we also corrected certain clerical errors made 
in the preliminary margin programs. See Saehan Calculation Memorandum.
     With respect to Huvis, for one of its home market 
customers, we have adjusted the credit period for open payment sales. 
See Memorandum from Team to File, ``Final Results Calculation 
Memorandum for Huvis Corporation,'' dated October 8, 2004; see also 
Decision Memorandum, at Comment 5.

Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices 
less than the 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.'' Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product during the 12-month period were 
at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made 
in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also 
determined that such below-cost sales were not made at prices which 
would 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 Keon Baek's, Saehan's and Huvis' home market sales were at prices 
less than the COP and, thus, the below-cost sales were made 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).

Currency Conversions

    We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the 
Act in the same manner as in the Preliminary Results.

Final Results of the Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Exporter/manufacturer                        margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huvis Corporation..........................................         1.54
Keon Baek Co., Ltd.........................................     \1\ 0.07
Saehan Industries, Inc.....................................        4.19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\De minimis.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated exporter/importer (or customer)-
specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. To 
determine whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis, in 
accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we 
calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by 
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to that 
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total value of 
the sales to that importer (or customer). Where an importer (or 
customer)-specific ad valorem rate was greater than de minimis, we 
calculated a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the dumping 
margins calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer (or customer) 
and dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer 
(or customer).
    The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to the CBP within 15 days of publication of these final 
results of review.

Cash Deposit Rates

    The following antidumping duty deposits will be required on all 
shipments of PSF from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption, effective 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 rates for the reviewed companies will 
be the rates listed above (except no cash deposit will be required if a 
company's weighted-average margin is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 
percent); (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (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).
    These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 doubled antidumping duties.

Notification Regarding APOs

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (``APOs'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the 
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of 
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO 
is a violation which is subject to sanction.

[[Page 61344]]

    We are issuing and publishing these results and this notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 8, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I--List of Comments in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

    Comment 1: Inclusion of Indirect Selling Expenses in Saehan's 
G&A Calculation.
    Comment 2: Inclusion of Non-Operating Gains and Losses in 
Saehan's G&A Calculation.
    Comment 3: Calculation of Saehan's Net Interest Expense Ratio.
    Comment 4: Clerical Errors in Saehan's Preliminary Margin 
Calculations.
    Comment 5: Huvis' Reported Credit Expenses on Home Market Sales.
    Comment 6: Huvis' Home Market Short-Term Interest Rate.

 [FR Doc. E4-2705 Filed 10-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P