[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30867-30872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8389]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-839]


Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Intent to Rescind, and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber 
from the Republic of Korea. The period of review is May 1, 2004, 
through April 30, 2005. This review covers imports of certain polyester 
staple fiber from one producer/exporter. We have preliminarily found 
that sales of the 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 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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2006.

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

[[Page 30868]]

telephone (202) 482-1174 and (202) 482-3813, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 25, 2000, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
published an antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber 
(``PSF'') from the Republic of Korea (``Korea''). See Notice of Amended 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester 
Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Antidumping Duty Orders: 
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, 
65 FR 33807 (May 25, 2000). On May 2, 2005, the Department published a 
notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' of this 
order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 
70 FR 22631 (May 2, 2005). On May 31, 2005, Wellman, Inc.; Invista, 
S.a.r.L.; and DAK Fibers, LLC (collectively, ``the petitioners'') 
requested administrative reviews of Huvis Corporation (``Huvis''); 
Saehan Industries, Inc. (``Saehan''); Daehan Synthetic Company, Ltd. 
(``Daehan''); and Dongwoo Industry Company (``Dongwoo''). On May 31, 
2005, Huvis requested an administrative review. On June 30, 2005, the 
Department published a notice initiating the review for the 
aforementioned companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 37749, 37756 (June 
30, 2005). The period of review (``POR'') is May 1, 2004, through April 
30, 2005.
    On July 6, 2005, we issued antidumping questionnaires in this 
review. On August 15, 2005, the petitioners withdrew their request for 
review of Saehan. On August 22, 2005, the petitioners withdrew their 
request for review of Dongwoo. On September 9, 2005, the Department 
received notice that Daehan had ceased operations and had no shipments 
of the merchandise under review during the POR. See Memorandum to the 
File: Questionnaire Response from Daehan Synthetic Fiber, Co., Ltd. 
(Mar. 15, 2006).
    On July 6, 2005, we instructed Huvis to respond to the cost section 
of the questionnaire because we had disregarded certain below-cost 
sales in the most recently completed administrative review. See Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Final Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 
69 FR 61341, 61343 (Oct. 18, 2004). We received sections A through D 
questionnaire responses from Huvis on August 17, 2005, September 2, 
2005, and September 16, 2005. In October 2005, and March 2006, we 
issued supplemental questionnaires to Huvis. We received responses to 
these supplemental questionnaires in November 2005, and March 2006, 
respectively. In February 2006, we requested Huvis to revise its 
reported model matching characteristics, as described in the ``Product 
Comparisons'' section, below. We received Huvis's response in February 
2006.

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 the order is 
dispositive.

Partial Rescission and Intent to Rescind

    As noted above, the petitioners withdrew their requests for review 
of Saehan and Dongwoo. Because these withdrawals were timely filed and 
no other party requested a review of these companies, pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review with respect to Saehan 
and Dongwoo.
    As noted above, the Department was notified by Daehan officials 
that this company ceased operations and had no shipments of subject 
merchandise during the POR. The Department confirmed using CBP data 
that Daehan did not ship subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POR. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are 
preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to Daehan.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``the Act''), during April 2006, we verified the information provided 
by Huvis in Korea using standard verification procedures, including 
examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of 
original documentation containing relevant information. The Department 
reported its findings on May 23, 2006. See Memorandum to the File, 
``Verification Report - Huvis Corporation'' dated May 23, 2006. This 
report is on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU'') in room B-099 
in the main Department building.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether the respondent's sales of PSF to the United 
States were made at less than normal value (``NV''), we compared export 
price (``EP'') to NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal 
Value'' sections of this notice.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EP 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 respondent 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) 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 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. For further details, see the ``Normal Value'' section, 
below.
    We compared U.S. sales to monthly weighted-average prices of 
contemporaneous sales made in the home market. Where there were no

[[Page 30869]]

contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise in the home market, we 
compared sales made within the window period, which extends from three 
months prior to the POR until two months after the POR. See, e.g., 
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review 
(``PSF from Korea: 4th Review Preliminary Results''), 70 FR 32756, 
32757 (June 6, 2005) (unchanged in Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber 
from the Republic of Korea (``PSF from Korea: 4th Review Final 
Results''), 70 FR 73435 (Dec. 12, 2005)). As directed by section 
771(16) of the Act, 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. Further, as provided 
in section 773(a)(4) of the Act, where we could not determine NV 
because 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'').
    Since the investigation, and throughout the administrative reviews 
of this antidumping duty order, classification of PSF products with 
certain physical characteristics within the model matching hierarchy 
has been highly contentious. (See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from 
the Republic of Korea (``LTFV Investigation: PSF from Korea''), 65 FR 
16880 (Mar. 30, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, 
Comment 10; Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 63616 (Oct. 15, 2002), 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, Comment 13; Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Review, 68 FR 59366 (Oct. 15, 2003), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum, Comment 2; PSF from Korea: 4th Review Final 
Results, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, Comment 1. In 
this review, the Department received new information in Huvis's 
supplemental questionnaire response regarding the physical 
characteristics of certain PSF products. See Nov. 29, 2005 Supplemental 
Questionnaire Response, Appendix 13. These events led the Department to 
reconsider whether the product matching characteristics established in 
the investigation accurately reflect the physical characteristics of 
the PSF product under review. For this administrative review and the 
concurrent administrative review of PSF from Taiwan (A-583-833), the 
Department requested comments regarding the adequacy of the model match 
criteria to reflect the physical characteristics of the merchandise 
under review. See letter from Julie H. Santoboni to Interested Parties, 
RE: 2004-2005 Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on 
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, dated Nov. 9, 
2005, which is on file in the Department's CRU; see also Memorandum to 
File: Modifications to the Department's Nov. 9, 2005 Letter to 
Interested Parties, dated Nov. 10, 2005. On November 16, 2005, we 
received comments from the petitioners, Huvis, and Far Eastern Textile 
(``FET''). On November 28, 2005, we received rebuttal comments from 
Dongwoo; the petitioners; FET; Consolidated Fibers, Inc. 
(``Consolidated Fibers''); and Huvis. On December 8, 2005, we received 
additional rebuttal comments from FET.
    The comments we received and the facts and information on the 
record of this review lead us to preliminarily conclude that relying on 
the model matching criteria established in the LTFV Investigation: PSF 
from Korea does not provide the best product comparisons because the 
criteria do not adequately reflect the physical differences exhibited 
by specialty PSF products. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of the Final 
Determination: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of 
Korea, 64 FR 60776, 60779 (Nov. 8, 1999). Cf. LTFV Investigation: PSF 
from Korea, Comment 10 (recognizing possibility of changing model match 
criteria as more was learned about PSF, due to the complexities and 
difficulties in establishing the initial criteria); Structural Steel 
Beams from Korea; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 6837 (Feb. 9, 2005), and accompanying 
Issues and Decisions Memorandum, Comment 1 (``It is appropriate to 
consider changes when additional expertise and knowledge with regard to 
the market demands and market realities of the products subject to the 
scope indicate that such changes allow more accurate comparison of U.S. 
and normal value products.''). Therefore, to account for the new 
information regarding physical characteristics of PSF and to increase 
product matching accuracy, the Department has preliminarily amended the 
matching criteria that were established in the original investigation. 
Accordingly, for the preliminary results, we matched the merchandise 
under review based on the physical characteristics reported by the 
respondent in the following order: loft; specialty fibers; type; grade; 
cross section; finish; and denier. See letter from Julie H. Santoboni 
to Huvis Corporation, RE: 2004-2005 Administrative Reviews of the 
Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea 
and Taiwan, dated Feb. 2, 2006, which is on file in the Department's 
CRU.

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 cost, insurance, and freight (``CIF''); ex-
dock duty paid (``EDDP'') - free-on-board (``FOB''); EDDP - cost and 
freight (``C&F''); or EDDP - CIF price to unaffiliated purchasers in 
the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions, 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, 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 provided documentation 
demonstrating that it received duty drawback under Korea's individual-
rate system. See Sept. 2, 2006 Sections B-D Questionnaire Response 
(``Sept. 2006, Sections B-D Questionnaire Response''), at Appendices C-
7 and C-8. In prior investigations and administrative reviews, the 
Department has examined Korea's 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, e.g., Notice of Final Results of the Eleventh Administrative 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Corrosion-Resistant 
Carbon Steel Flat

[[Page 30870]]

Products from the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 7513 (Feb. 13, 2006), and 
accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum, Comment 2. We examined 
the documentation submitted by Huvis in this administrative review and 
confirmed that it meets the Department's two-prong test for receiving a 
duty drawback adjustment. Accordingly, we are allowing the reported 
duty drawback adjustment on Huvis's U.S. sales.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market

    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 the 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 the 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 comparison.

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 (Nov. 19, 1997) (``CTL Plate''). In order to determine 
whether the comparison market 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 
category''), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. 
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 respondent's sales occur 
somewhere along this chain. CTL Plate, 62 FR at 61732. In performing 
this evaluation, we considered the narrative responses of the 
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. CTL Plate, 62 FR at 61732. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Tech, Inc. v. United 
States, et al., 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (interpreting 
Congressional intent, in accordance with 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, general and 
administrative (``SG&A'') expenses, and profit for CV, where 
possible. See, e.g., PSF from Korea: 4th Review Preliminary Results, 
70 FR at 32758 (unchanged in PSF from Korea: 4th Review Final 
Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. sales to sales at a different 
LOT in the comparison market. See, e.g., PSF from Korea: 4th Review 
Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 32758 (unchanged in PSF from Korea: 4th 
Review Final Results). 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 a 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 to the United States. See August 17, 
2005 Section A Questionnaire Response (``Aug. 2005 Section A 
Questionnaire Response''), at 8. Huvis has reported a single channel of 
distribution and a single level of trade in each market, and has not 
requested a LOT adjustment. See Sept. 2006 Sections B-D Questionnaire 
Response, at 16. We examined the information reported by Huvis 
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 to the United States, and a single, identical level of 
trade in the home market. Thus, it was unnecessary to make a LOT 
adjustment for 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 Antidumping Proceedings: 
Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 
(Nov. 15, 2002). In accordance with the Department's practice, we 
included in our margin analysis only sales to an affiliated party that 
were made at arm's length. See, e.g., PSF from Korea: 4th Review 
Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 32758 (unchanged in PSF from Korea: 4th 
Review Final Results).

D. Cost of Production Analysis

    As discussed in the ``Background'' section above, we disregarded 
some sales by Huvis in a previous review because they were made at 
prices below the cost of production. Under section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 
the Act, the previously disregarded below-cost sales provide reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that the respondent made sales of the 
subject merchandise in its comparison market at prices below the cost 
of production (``COP'') within the meaning of section 773(b) of the 
Act. Whenever the Department has this reason to believe or suspect, we 
are directed by section 773(b) of the Act to determine whether, in 
fact, there were below-cost sales.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(1), we disregard sales from our 
calculation of NV that were made at less than the COP if they were made 
in substantial quantities over an extended period of time at prices 
that would not permit recovery of costs within a reasonable period. We 
find that the below-cost sales represent ``substantial quantities,'' 
when 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product 
are at prices less than the COP, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department normally considers sales to 
have been made within an extended period of time when made during a

[[Page 30871]]

period of one year. Finally, prices do not permit recovery of costs 
within a reasonable period of time if the per unit COP at the time of 
sale is below the weighted average per unit COP for the POR, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.

1. Calculation of COP

    We calculated the COP on a product-specific basis, based on the sum 
of the respondent's costs of materials and fabrication for the 
merchandise under review, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, interest 
expenses, and the costs of all expenses incidental to placing the 
foreign like product packed and in a condition ready for shipment, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.
    We relied on COP information submitted in Huvis's cost 
questionnaire responses (See March 20, 2006 Supplemental Questionnaire 
Response, at Appendix S-49), except for the following adjustments. 
Consistent with the previous administrative review, we adjusted Huvis's 
reported cost of manufacturing to account for purchases of modified 
terephthalic acid (``MTA'') and qualified terephthalic acid (``QTA'') 
from affiliated parties at non-arm's-length prices. In doing so, we 
preliminarily find that MTA and QTA are interchangeable for the 
following reasons: (1) the production processes of MTA and QTA are 
essentially the same; (2) Huvis has stated it may, in certain 
instances, use a type of terephtalic acid (``TPA'') different from the 
one normally used in production of a particular chip without 
significant changes to the end product; and (3) Huvis's decision to use 
MTA or QTA in the production process is driven by plant proximity to 
the chemical supplier. See, e.g., PSF from Korea: 4th Review 
Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 32758 (unchanged in PSF from Korea: 4th 
Review Final Results). Huvis did not provide market price information 
for QTA. See Memorandum from Team to the File, Preliminary Results 
Calculation Memorandum - Huvis Corporation (May 23, 2006) (``Huvis 
Calculation Memorandum''), which is on file in the Department's CRU.
    Huvis excluded business restructuring expenses from its net SG&A 
expense calculation. See Aug. 2005 Section A Questionnaire Response, at 
Appendix A-9; Sept. 2005 Sections B-D Questionnaire Response, at 
Appendix D-12. For the preliminary results, we have included these 
expenses because it is the Department's normal practice not to consider 
business restructuring to be an unusual or extraordinary event. See, 
e.g., Notice of Final Results and Recision in Part of Antidumping 
Administrative Review; Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drillpipe 
From Argentina, 68 FR 13262 (Mar. 19, 2003), and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum, Comment 4; Silicomanganese from Brazil: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 62 FR 1320, 
1322 (Jan. 9, 1997) (unchanged in Silicomanganese From Brazil; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 37869, 37870-
71 (July 15, 1997)); Huvis Calculation Memorandum.
    In its net interest expense calculation, Huvis offset its interest 
expenses by deposits for retirement insurance. For the preliminary 
results, we have excluded this offset because it is not related to 
interest income incurred on short-term investments of working capital. 
See, e.g., PSF from Korea: 4th Review Final Results, and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum, Comment 5; see also Huvis Calculation 
Memorandum.
    Huvis calculated its interest expenses based on its unconsolidated 
financial statements. Our practice, however, is to calculate interest 
expenses based on consolidated financial statements. See, e.g., Notice 
of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Furfuryl 
Alcohol from Thailand, 70 FR 71085 (Nov. 25, 2005) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum, Comment 4. Therefore, for the 
preliminary results, we have recalculated Huvis's interest expenses 
using Huvis's consolidated financial statements. See Huvis 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, to determine 
whether these sales were made at prices below the COP. According to our 
practice, the prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges 
and indirect selling expenses. See, e.g., PSF from Korea: 4th Review 
Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 32758 (unchanged in PSF from Korea: 4th 
Review Final Results). 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

    We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of the 
respondent's 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 permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of 
time. Therefore, we excluded these sales and used the remaining sales 
of the same product, 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. 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 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., bank 
charges) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., bank charges). 
See 19 CFR 351.410(c).
    For some of its home market sales, Huvis reported that payments 
were made within an open account system, i.e., periodic payments were 
made on outstanding account balances. See November 29, 2006, 
Supplemental Questionnaire Response, at 17. For these open account 
sales, Huvis calculated the payment date using an average payment 
period for each customer. Id., at Appendix 18. For one of Huvis's home 
market customers, we have adjusted the credit period for open account 
sales to better reflect sales account activity during the POR. For two 
of Huvis's home market customers, we have adjusted the credit period 
for open account sales as a result of verification findings. For two of 
Huvis's home market customers, we have adjusted the credit period for 
open account sales to reflect the information submitted by Huvis in its 
March 20, 2006, supplemental questionnaire response. We also 
recalculated credit expenses for home market sales that were incurred 
in U.S. dollars using Huvis's reported U.S. interest rate. See Huvis 
Calculation Memorandum.

[[Page 30872]]

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We find that the following dumping margin exists for the period May 
1, 2004, through April 30, 2005:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-average
                Exporter/manufacturer                  margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huvis Corporation...................................                2.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 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. Pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.309(c), 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. See 19 
CFR 351.309(d). 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. See section 751(a)(3) of the Act.

Assessment Rates and Cash Deposit Requirements

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries.
    In its Sept. 2006, Sections B-D Questionnaire Response, Huvis 
submitted evidence demonstrating that it was the importer of record for 
certain of its POR sales. We examined the customs entry documentation 
submitted by Huvis and tied it to the U.S. sales listing. We noted that 
Huvis was indeed the importer of record for certain sales. Therefore, 
for purposes of calculating the importer-specific assessment rates, we 
have treated Huvis as the importer of record for certain POR shipments. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales where Huvis is the 
importer of record, Huvis submitted the reported entered value of the 
U.S. sales and we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates 
based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated 
for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales.
    Regarding sales where Huvis was not the importer of record, we note 
that Huvis did not report the entered value for the U.S. sales in 
question. Accordingly, we have calculated importer-specific assessment 
rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping 
margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing 
this amount by the total quantity of those sales. 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-
specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate 
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the 
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The 
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of 
subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies 
included in these preliminary results for which the reviewed companies 
did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In 
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at 
the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate 
company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this 
clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
    For Saehan and Dongwoo, the Department is instructing CBP to 
liquidate any entries from these companies during the POR and to assess 
antidumping duties at the rate in effect at the time of entry. If the 
Department rescinds this review for Daehan, and in the event any 
entries were made during the POR through intermediaries under the CBP 
case number for Daehan, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate 
such entries at the all others rate in effect on the date of entry, 
consistent with the May 6, 2003 clarification discussed above.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    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 company 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: May 23, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-8389 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S