[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 237 (Monday, December 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73435-73437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23924]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-839]


Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea

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

SUMMARY: On June 6, 2005, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain polyester staple fiber from the Republic of 
Korea. 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 margin for Huvis 
Corporation is listed below in the ``Final Results of the Review'' 
section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 12, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Bordas or Andrew McAllister, 
Office 1, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3813 
or (202) 482-1174, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 6, 2005, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial 
Rescission of Review, 70 FR 32756 (June 6, 2005) (``Preliminary 
Results'') in the Federal Register.
    We invited parties to comment on the preliminary results of the 
review. On July 6, 2005, Wellman, Inc.; Arteva Specialties, Inc. d/b/a 
KoSa; and DAK Fibers, LLC (collectively, ``the petitioners''), and the 
respondent,\1\ Huvis Corporation (``Huvis''), filed case briefs. On 
July 11, 2005, the petitioners and Huvis filed rebuttal briefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On March 11, 2005, the Department was informed that Arteva 
Specialties, Inc. d/b/a KoSa had changed its name to Invista 
S.a.r.l. Presently, the petitioners are Wellman, Inc.; Invista 
S.a.r.l.; and DAK Fibers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 29, 2005, we extended the time limit for the final 
results of this administrative review, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). See Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Extension of Time 
Limit for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 70 FR 58186 (October 5, 2005). Accordingly, the final results 
of this administrative review are scheduled for completion by December 
5, 2005.

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, 2003, through April 30, 
2004.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this review

[[Page 73436]]

are addressed in the December 5, 2005, Issues and Decision Memorandum 
for the Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea (``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 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 Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main 
Department building (``CRU''). In addition, a complete version of the 
Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at 
www.ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the 
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Revocation

    The Department ``may revoke, in whole or in part'' an antidumping 
duty order upon completion of a review under section 751(d) 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), Huvis requested revocation of the 
antidumping duty order as it pertains to Huvis. 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 find that the request from Huvis does not meet all of the 
criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from 
Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Partial Rescission of Review, 70 FR 32756, 32757 (June 6, 2005) 
(``Preliminary Results''). With regard to the criterion of 19 CFR 
351.222(b)(2)(i), Huvis received a weighted average margin of 1.54 
percent in the 2002-2003 administrative review and, thus, has not sold 
subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period of three 
consecutive years. See Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 61341 (October 18, 
2004) (``2002-2003 PSF Final''), covering the period May 1, 2002, 
through April 30, 2003. Therefore, we find that Huvis does not qualify 
for revocation of the order on PSF pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2).

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of PSF from Korea to the United States 
were made at less than normal value, we compared export price (``EP'') 
to the NV. We calculated EP, NV, constructed value (``CV''), and the 
cost of production (``COP''), based on the same methodologies used in 
the Preliminary Results, with the following exceptions:
     We have adjusted Huvis' general and administrative expense 
ratio. See Memorandum from Team, through Julie H. Santoboni, to the 
File, ``Final Results Calculation Memorandum for Huvis Corporation,'' 
dated December 5, 2005 (``Huvis Calculation Memorandum'').
     For Huvis' affiliated suppliers, we have adjusted the 
sales, general and administrative expense ratios. See Huvis Calculation 
Memorandum. See also Decision Memorandum, at Comment 4.

Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of sales of a given product were 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 POR were at prices less than the COP, we 
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities.'' 
See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The sales were made within an 
extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the 
Act, because we examined below-cost sales occurring during the entire 
POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we 
also determined that such 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)(2)(D) of the Act.
    We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of Huvis' 
comparison 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. We therefore excluded these sales and used the 
remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

Final Results of the Review

    We find that the following percentage margin exists for the period 
May 1, 2003, through April 30, 2004:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-average
                Exporter/manufacturer                  margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huvis Corporation...................................                5.87
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``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.

[[Page 73437]]

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 company will be 
the rate 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 Administrative Protective Orders

    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.
    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: December 5, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

APPENDIX I

List of Comments in the Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Huvis's Specialty Products

Comment 2: Antidumping Duty Reimbursement

Comment 3: Credit Period Recalculation

Comment 4: SG&A Expense Ratio Calculations

Comment 5: Interest Earned on Deposits
[FR Doc. 05-23924 Filed 12-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S