[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 26, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77373-77382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-22071]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-570-905)


Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China

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

EFFECTIVE DATE:  December 26, 2006.
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that certain polyester staple fiber 
(``PSF'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') is being, or is 
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value 
(``LTFV''), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown 
in the ``Preliminary Determination'' section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Holton or Paul Walker, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1324 or 482-0413, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Initiation

    On June 23, 2006, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
received a petition on imports of PSF from the PRC filed in proper form 
by Dak Americas LLC., Nan Ya Plastics Corporation America, and Wellman, 
Inc. (``Petitioners'') on behalf of the domestic industry and workers 
producing PSF. This investigation was initiated on July 13, 2006. See 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Polyester Staple 
Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 41201 (July 20, 2006) 
(``Initiation Notice''). Additionally, in the Initiation Notice, the 
Department notified parties of the application process by which 
exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate status in non-market 
economy (``NME'') investigations. The new process requires exporters 
and producers to submit a separate-rate status application. See Policy 
Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination 
Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy 
Countries, (April 5, 2005), (``Policy Bulletin 05.1'') available at 
http://ia.ita.doc.gov. However, the standard for eligibility for a 
separate rate (which is whether a firm can demonstrate an absence of 
both de jure and de facto governmental control over its export 
activities) has not changed.
    On August 7, 2006, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``ITC'') issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there 
is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of 
imports from the PRC of PSF. The ITC's determination was published in 
the Federal Register on August 11, 2006. See Investigation No. 731-TA-
1104 (Preliminary), Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from China, 71 FR 
46241 (August 11, 2006).

Scope Comments

    The Department also set aside a 20-day period from the publication 
of the initiation for all interested parties to raise issues regarding 
product coverage. The Department did not receive any comments from 
interested parties regarding product coverage during the 20-day period 
and subsequently, did not change the scope in the Initiation Notice.

Quantity and Value

    On July 19, 2006, the Department requested quantity and value 
(``Q&V'') information from a total of 106 companies that Petitioners 
identified as potential producers or exporters of PSF from the PRC. 
Also, on July 19, 2006, the Department sent a letter requesting Q&V 
information to the China Bureau of Fair Trade for Imports & Exports 
(``BOFT'') of the Ministry of Commerce (``MOFCOM'') requesting that 
BOFT transmit the letter to all companies who manufacture and export 
subject merchandise to the United States, or produce the subject 
merchandise for the companies who were engaged in exporting the subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POI. For a complete list of 
all parties from which the Department requested Q&V information, see 
Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 
from Michael Holton, Sr. International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9: Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping 
Investigation of Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of 
China, dated September 18, 2006, (``Respondent Selection Memorandum''). 
Between August 8, 2006, and August 21, 2006, the Department received 
Q&V responses from 19 interested parties. The Department did not 
receive any type of communication from BOFT regarding its

[[Page 77374]]

request for Q&V information. See Respondent Selection Memorandum at 1.
    On September 18, 2006, the Department selected Cixi Jiangnan 
Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. (``Cixi Jiangnan''), Far Eastern Industries 
(Shanghai) Ltd. (``Far Eastern'') and Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., 
Ltd. (``Ningbo Dafa'') as mandatory respondents in this investigation. 
See Respondent Selection Memorandum at 4.

Surrogate Country

    On September 28, 2006, the Department determined that India, 
Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries 
comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. See Memorandum 
from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Alex Villanueva, 
Program Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9: Antidumping Investigation 
of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China 
(PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, dated September 28, 
2006.
    On October 5, 2006, the Department requested comments on the 
surrogate country selection from the interested parties in these 
reviews. Petitioners submitted surrogate country comments on October 
27, 2006. Far Eastern submitted surrogate country comments on November 
9, 2006. On November 20, 2006, Petitioners submitted rebuttal surrogate 
country comments. No other interested parties commented on the 
selection of a surrogate country. For a detailed discussion of the 
selection of the surrogate country, see ``Surrogate Country'' section 
below, and the Memorandum to the File through James C. Doyle, Director, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Polyester 
Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a 
Surrogate Country, dated December 15, 2006 (``Surrogate Country 
Memorandum'').

Separate Rates Applications

    Between August 16, 2006, and August 21, 2006, we received separate-
rate applications from seventeen companies, including the mandatory 
respondents: Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa. On September 
13, 2006, and September 14, 2006, we received applications from 
Hangzhou Taifu Textile Fiber Co., Ltd. (``Hangzhou Taifu'') and 
Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co., Ltd., respectively.

Questionnaires

    On September 6, 2006, the Department requested comments from all 
interested parties on proposed product characteristics and model match 
criteria to be used in the designation of control numbers (``CONNUMs'') 
to be assigned to the subject merchandise. The Department received 
comments from Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Springs Global US, Inc. 
(``Springs Global'') and Petitioners. The Department also received 
rebuttal comments from Ningbo Dafa. On September 20, 2006, the 
Department issued its sections A, C, D, and E, questionnaire with 
product characteristics and model match criteria used in the 
designation of CONNUMs and assigned to the merchandise under 
consideration. On November 27, 2006, the Department requested 
supplemental information from Hangzhou Taifu. The Department issued 
supplemental questionnaires to Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, and Ningbo 
Dafa between October and November 2006, and received responses between 
October and December 2006. On December 7 and 8, 2006, Petitioners 
submitted Comments on Cixi Jiangnan's, Far Eastern's and Ningbo Dafa's 
December 4, 2006, supplemental questionnaires responses. On December 
11, 2006, Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa responded to 
Petitioners' comments. The Department was unable to fully consider 
Petitioners' December 7 and 8, 2006, comments and respondents' December 
11, 2006, comments because they were filed less than 10 days before the 
preliminary determination.

Surrogate Value Comments

    On November 9, 2006, Petitioners, Far Eastern, Cixi Jiangnan and 
Ningbo Dafa submitted comments on surrogate information with which to 
value the factors of production in this proceeding. On November 20, 
2006, Petitioners filed rebuttal comments on surrogate information with 
which to value the factors of production in this proceeding. On 
December 4, 2006, Ningbo Dafa submitted additional surrogate value 
comments.

Critical Circumstances

    On September 29, 2006, Petitioners alleged that there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist 
with respect to the antidumping investigation of PSF from the PRC. On 
October 5, 2006, the Department issued questionnaires requesting data 
for monthly exports to the United States from January 2003 through 
September 2006 from Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa, and 
received responses on October. For a detailed discussion, please see 
the ``Critical Circumstances'' section below.

Postponement of Preliminary Determination

    On November 16, 2006, the Department informed Petitioners, Cixi 
Jiangnan, Far Eastern, and Ningbo Dafa of our intent to postpone the 
preliminary determination pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(B)(i) of the 
Act by fifteen days to December 15, 2006. On December 5, 2006, the 
Department published a postponement of the preliminary antidumping duty 
determination on PSF from the PRC. See Notice of Postponement of 
Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 70508 
(December 5, 2006).

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is October 1, 2006, through 
March 31, 2006. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal 
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (June 23, 
2006). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise subject to this proceeding is 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 subject merchandise 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.
    The following products are excluded from the scope: (1) PSF of less 
than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at 
subheading 5503.20.0025 and known to the industry as PSF for spinning 
and generally used in woven and knit applications to produce textile 
and apparel products; (2) PSF of 10 to 18 denier that are cut to 
lengths of 6 to 8 inches and that are generally used in the manufacture 
of carpeting; and (3) low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component fiber with 
an outer, non-polyester sheath that melts at a significantly lower 
temperature than its inner polyester core (classified at HTSUS 
5503.20.0015).
    Certain PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheadings 
5503.20.0045 and

[[Page 77375]]

5503.20.0065. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise under the orders is dispositive.

Non-Market-Economy Country

    For purposes of initiation, Petitioners submitted LTFV analyses for 
the PRC as a non-market economy. See Initiation Notice, 71 FR at 41203. 
The Department considers the PRC to be a NME country. In accordance 
with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign 
country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, (``TRBs'') From the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial 
Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in 
Final Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review: TRBs from the 
People's Republic of China, 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 2003). No party 
has challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME country in this 
investigation. Therefore, we have treated the PRC as an NME country for 
purposes of this preliminary determination.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production valued in a 
surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be 
appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of 
the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall 
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of 
production in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level 
of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the 
surrogate values we have used in this investigation are discussed under 
the normal value section below.
    As detailed in the Surrogate Country Memorandum, the Department has 
preliminarily selected India as the surrogate country on the basis 
that: (1) it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; (2) 
it is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to 733(c)(4) 
of the Act; and (3) we have reliable data from India that we can use to 
value the factors of production. Thus, we have calculated normal value 
using Indian prices when available and appropriate to value Cixi 
Jiangnan's, Far Eastern's and Ningbo Dafa's factors of production. See 
Memorandum to the File from Paul Walker, through Alex Villanueva, 
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, and James C. Doyle, 
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber 
from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the 
Preliminary Determination, dated December 15, 2006 (``Factor Value 
Memorandum'').
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final 
determination in an antidumping investigation, interested parties may 
submit publicly available information to value the factors of 
production within 40 days after the date of publication of the 
preliminary determination.

Affiliations

    Based on the evidence on the record in this investigation and based 
on the evidence presented in Far Eastern's questionnaire responses, we 
preliminarily find that Far Eastern is affiliated with Far Eastern 
Polychem Industries (``FEPI''), WuHan Far Eastern Industrial Trading 
Ltd. (``WHFE''), Alberta & Orient Co., Ltd (Canada) (``A&O''), Yuang 
Ding Investment Co. Ltd. (``YDIC''), Everest Investment (Holding) 
Limited (``EIHL''), Everest Textile Co. Ltd. (``Everest Textile''), Far 
Eastern Industrial (Suzhou) Ltd. (``FEIZ''), Far Eastern Industrial 
(Wuxi) Ltd. (``FEIW'') and Far Eastern Textiles (Taiwan) Ltd.'s 
(``FETL''), in addition to FETL's other related parties, pursuant to 
sections 771(33)(E), (F), and (G) of the Act. Additionally, based on 
the evidence on the record in this investigation and presented in 
Ningbo Dafa's questionnaire responses, we preliminarily find that 
Ningbo Dafa is affiliated with Cixi Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd., 
Ferry Fly Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. and Worthal Limited Partnership 
pursuant to sections 771(33)(E), (F), and (G) of the Act. We 
preliminarily find that it is not necessary to collapse Far Eastern or 
Ningbo Dafa with its affiliates because there is no record evidence 
demonstrating that there is significant potential for manipulation of 
price or production with its affiliates. We note that the Department 
normally considers three criteria for collapsing: (i) the level of 
common ownership; (ii) the extent to which managerial employees or 
board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an 
affiliated firm; and (iii) whether operations are intertwined, such as 
through the sharing of sales information, involvement in production and 
pricing decisions, the sharing of facilities or employees, or 
significant transactions between the affiliated producers. See 19 
C.F.R. Sec. 351.401(f)(2).

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country 
this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Cixi 
Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa, and the Separate-Rate Applicants 
have provided company-specific information to demonstrate that they 
operate independently of de jure and de facto government control, and 
therefore satisfy the standards for the assignment of a separate rate.
    We have considered whether each PRC company that submitted a 
complete application is eligible for a separate rate. The Department's 
separate-rate test is not concerned, in general, with macroeconomic/
border-type controls, e.g., export licenses, quotas, and minimum export 
prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. 
See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 
72255, 72256 (December 31, 1998). The test focuses, rather, on controls 
over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the 
individual firm level. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 62 
FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 
61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the 
subject merchandise under a test arising from the Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), 
as further developed in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 
59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). In

[[Page 77376]]

accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns 
separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the 
absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export 
activities.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    The evidence provided by Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa 
and the Separate-Rate Applicants supports a preliminary finding of de 
jure absence of governmental control based on the following: 1) an 
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual 
exporter's business and export licenses; 2) the applicable legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and 3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
9, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
9: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber 
from the People's Republic of China: Separate Rates Memorandum, dated 
December 15, 2006 (``Separate Rates Memorandum'').

2. Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 
22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of 
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in 
fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates.
    We determine that, for Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa and 
the Separate-Rate Applicants, the evidence on the record supports a 
preliminary finding of de facto absence of governmental control based 
on record statements and supporting documentation showing the 
following: 1) each exporter sets its own export prices independent of 
the government and without the approval of a government authority; 2) 
each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent 
decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses; 3) 
each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and 
other agreements; and 4) each exporter has autonomy from the government 
regarding the selection of management.
    Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this investigation 
by Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa and the Separate-Rate 
Applicants demonstrate an absence of de jure and de facto government 
control with respect to each of the exporter's exports of the 
merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria 
identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. As a result, for the 
purposes of this preliminary determination, we have granted separate 
company-specific rates to Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa. 
Additionally, we have granted the Separate-Rate Applicants a weighted-
average margin for the purposes of this preliminary determination. See 
Separate Rates Memorandum.

The PRC-Wide Entity

    The Department has data that indicates there were more exporters of 
PSF from the PRC than those indicated in the response to our request 
for Q&V information during the POI. See Respondent Selection 
Memorandum. We issued our request for Q&V information to 106 potential 
Chinese exporters of the subject merchandise, in addition to BOFT and 
MOFCOM.\1\ We received only 19 Q&V responses and 3 Q&V responses that 
were improperly filed. See Respondent Selection Memorandum at 1-2. We 
did not receive Q&V responses from most of the companies to which we 
sent our request for Q&V information. See Id. Information on the record 
of this investigation indicates that there are numerous producers/
exporters of PSF in the PRC. Based upon our knowledge of the volume of 
imports of subject merchandise from the PRC, the companies which 
responded to the Q&V questionnaire, the Separate-Rate Applicants, Cixi 
Jiangnan, Far Eastern, and Ningbo Dafa do not account for all imports 
into the United States. Although all exporters were given an 
opportunity to provide Q&V information, not all exporters provided a 
response to the Department's Q&V letter. Further, the Government of the 
PRC did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. Therefore, the 
Department determines preliminarily that there were PRC exporters of 
the subject merchandise during the POI from PRC producers/exporters 
that did not respond to the Department's request for information. We 
have treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide 
entity because they did not qualify for a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a list of companies to which the Department sent its 
request for Q&V information, see Respondent Selection Memorandum at 
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department, 
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the 
Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination.
    Information on the record of this investigation indicates that the 
PRC-wide entity was non-responsive. Certain companies did not respond 
to our request for Q&V information and did not respond to the 
Department's questionnaire. As a result, pursuant to section 
776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find that the use of facts available is 
appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003).
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts

[[Page 77377]]

otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse inference if 
an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with requests for information. See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 
Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the Russian Federation, 
65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000); see also ``Statement of 
Administrative Action,'' accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 
870 (1994) (``SAA''). We find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not 
respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to 
the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds 
that, in selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference 
is appropriate.
    Further, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use 
as adverse facts available (``AFA'') information derived from the 
petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a 
previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the 
record. In selecting a rate for adverse facts available, the Department 
selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the 
purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide 
the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely 
manner.'' See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 
8932 (February 23, 1998). It is the Department's practice to select, as 
AFA, the higher of the (a) highest margin alleged in the petition, or 
(b) the highest calculated rate of any respondent in the investigation. 
See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-
Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's Republic of 
China, 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum, at ``Facts Available.'' In the instant investigation, as 
AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity a margin based on 
information in the petition, because the margin derived from the 
petition is higher than the calculated margins for the selected 
respondents. In this case, we have applied the petition rate of 44.30 
percent.
    Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at its disposal.\2\ The SAA also states that the independent 
sources may include published price lists, official import statistics 
and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties 
during the particular investigation. See SAA at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Secondary information is described in the SAA as 
``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SAA also clarifies that ``corroborate'' means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. See SAA at 870. As noted in Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and 
Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and 
Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), unchanged in Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in 
Part: Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan, 62 FR 
11825 (March 13, 2005), to corroborate secondary information, the 
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and 
relevance of the information used.
    Petitioners' methodology for calculating the export price and 
normal value in the petition is discussed in the initiation notice. See 
Initiation Notice at 41203. To corroborate the AFA margin selected, we 
compared the U.S. price and normal values from the petition to the U.S. 
price and normal values for the respondents. See Memorandum to the File 
through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: 
Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Facts Available Rate for the Preliminary 
Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of PSF and parts 
thereof from the People's Republic of China, dated December 15, 2006, 
(``Corroboration Memorandum''). Accordingly, we find that the rate of 
44.30 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of 
the Act. Consequently, we are applying 44.30 percent as the single 
antidumping rate to the PRC-wide entity. The PRC-wide rate applies to 
all entries of the merchandise under investigation except for entries 
from Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa and the Separate- Rate 
Applicants.

Margin for the Separate Rate Applicants

    The Department received timely and complete separate rates 
applications from the Separate Rates Applicants, who are all exporters 
of PSF from the PRC, which were not selected as mandatory respondents 
in this investigation. Through the evidence in their applications, 
these companies have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate 
rate, as discussed above in the ``Separate Rates'' section and in the 
Separate Rates Memorandum. Consistent with the Department's practice, 
as the separate rate, we have established a weighted-average margin for 
the Separate Rates Applicants based on the rates we calculated for 
Ningbo Dafa, Cixi Jiangnan and Far Eastern, excluding any rates that 
are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on AFA. Companies receiving 
this rate are identified by name in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' 
section of this notice.

Date of Sale

    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that, 
``in identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or foreign 
like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as 
recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the normal 
course of business.'' However, the Secretary may use a date other than 
the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date 
better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes 
the material terms of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i); See also Allied Tube 
and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-1093 
(CIT 2001) (``Allied Tube''). The date of sale is generally the date on 
which the parties agree upon all substantive terms of the sale. This 
normally includes the price, quantity, delivery terms and payment 
terms. In order to simplify the determination of date of sale for both 
the respondent and the Department and in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.401(i), the date of sale will normally be the date of the invoice, 
as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the 
ordinary course of business, unless satisfactory evidence is presented 
that the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale on 
some other date. In other words, the date of the invoice is the 
presumptive date of sale, although this presumption may be overcome. 
For instance, in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan, 61 FR 14067 (March 29, 1996),

[[Page 77378]]

the Department used the date of the purchase order as the date of sale 
because the terms of sale were established at that point.
    After examining the questionnaire responses and the sales 
documentation that Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa placed on 
the record, we preliminarily determine that invoice date is the most 
appropriate date of sale for Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo 
Dafa. In its supplemental section A response, dated November 16, 2006, 
Far Eastern explained that it had incorrectly stated that it did not 
encounter any changes to the material terms of sale from its purchase 
orders. Instead, its original statement should have read that material 
terms of the sale from its commercial invoice had not changed during 
the POI. Additionally, Far Eastern provided several specific examples 
where it did encounter changes to the material terms of sale from its 
purchase orders. These examples included a cancellation of a sale and 
order changes that affected the price, quantity, product types and 
shipping destination.
    Petitioners, however, claim that the purchase order date is the 
most appropriate date of sale because Far Eastern stated that it did 
not encounter any changes with respect to the material terms of the 
sale from its purchase orders in its original section A questionnaire 
response, dated October 12, 2006. Petitioners have requested that the 
Department use the purchase order date because Far Eastern stated that 
the terms of sale did not change after the purchase order was issued.
    In Allied Tube, the Court of International Trade (``CIT'') found 
that a ``party seeking to establish a date of sale other than invoice 
date bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to 'satisfy' the 
Department that a different date better reflects the date on which the 
exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.''' Allied 
Tube 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1092.
    Therefore, for this preliminary determination, the Department finds 
that based on the information on the record, Petitioners have failed to 
rebut the presumption that the invoice date is not the appropriate date 
of sale for Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern or Ningbo Dafa. Each respondent 
has provided various examples of material changes to their purchase 
orders during the POI. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Saccharin From the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 
79054 (December 27, 2005).

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of PSF to the United States by Cixi 
Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa were made at less than fair 
value, we compared the export price (``EP'') to normal value (``NV''), 
as described in the ``U.S. Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of 
this notice. We compared NV to weighted-average EPs in accordance with 
section 777A(d)(1) of the Act.

U.S. Price

Export Price

    For Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa, we based U.S. price 
on EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first 
sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and 
CEP was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We 
calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to the first 
unaffiliated customer in the United States. Where applicable, we 
deducted foreign movement expenses, foreign brokerage and handling 
expenses, and international freight expenses from the starting price 
(gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.
    Where foreign movement or international ocean freight was provided 
by PRC service providers or paid for in Renminbi (``RMB''), we valued 
these services using surrogate values (see ``Factors of Production'' 
section below for further discussion).
    For a complete discussion of specific respondent calculations of 
the U.S. price, see Memorandum to the File from Michael Holton, Senior 
Case Analyst: Program Analysis for the Preliminary Determination of 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from 
the People's Republic of China: Cixi Jiangnan, dated December 15, 2006 
(``Cixi Jiangnan Analysis Memorandum''); Memorandum to the File from 
Michael Holton, Senior Case Analyst: Program Analysis for the 
Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Far 
Eastern, dated December 15, 2006 (``Far Eastern Analysis Memorandum''); 
and Memorandum to The File from Paul Walker, Senior Case Analyst, 
Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's 
Republic of China: Analysis Memo for Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., 
Ltd., dated December 15, 2006 (``Ningbo Dafa Analysis Memorandum'').

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using a factors-of-production methodology if the 
merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit 
the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, 
or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department 
bases NV on the FOP because the presence of government controls on 
various aspects of non-market economies renders price comparisons and 
the calculation of production costs invalid under the Department's 
normal methodologies.
    During the POI, Far Eastern did not have production of all types of 
merchandise for which it had POI sales. Consequently, Far Eastern 
reported in the factors of production database the most closely 
resembling CONNUM produced during the POI for the merchandise that was 
sold, but not produced during the POI. At the Department's request, Far 
Eastern also submitted factors of production information covering the 
six-month period prior to the POI for the merchandise that was sold, 
but not produced during the POI, which included factors of production 
most closely resembling the CONNUM produced during the POI. Therefore, 
the Department has determined to use the additional six-month 
information provided by Far Eastern. See Far Eastern Analysis 
Memorandum.
    In addition, Ningbo Dafa produced subject merchandise in more than 
one facility. Ningbo Dafa has stated that all subject merchandise sales 
to the United States and their respective CONNUMs may be tied to a 
single production facility. The Petitioners have argued that the 
Department should calculate normal value using factors of production 
from all of Ningbo Dafa's production facilities. However, absent record 
information to the contrary, for this preliminary determination, the 
Department has only included the factors of production from this single 
facility in our calculation of normal value. See Ningbo Dafa Analysis 
Memorandum for a more complete explanation. The Department will 
continue to examine this issue for the final determination.

Critical Circumstances

    On September 29, 2006, Petitioners alleged that there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist 
with respect to the antidumping investigation of PSF from the PRC. On 
October 19, 2006, Cixi

[[Page 77379]]

Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa submitted information on their 
exports from January 2003 through September 2006 as requested by the 
Department. In accordance with 19 C.F.R. Sec.  351.206(c)(2)(i), 
because Petitioners submitted critical circumstances allegations more 
than 20 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary 
determination, the Department must issue preliminary critical 
circumstances determinations not later than the date of the preliminary 
determination.
    Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will 
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a history 
of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the 
United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or (ii) the 
person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew 
or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject 
merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be 
material injury by reason of such sales; and (B) there have been 
massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short 
period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides 
that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have 
been ``massive,'' the Department normally will examine: (i) the volume 
and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of 
domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, section 
351.206(h)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that an increase 
in imports of 15 percent during the ``relatively short period'' of time 
may be considered ``massive.'' Section 351.206(i) of the Department's 
regulations defines ``relatively short period'' as normally being the 
period beginning on the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the 
petition is filed) and ending at least three months later. The 
regulations also provide, however, that if the Department finds that 
importers, exporters, or producers had reason to believe, at some time 
prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, 
the Department may consider a period of not less than three months from 
that earlier time.
    In accordance with Section 733(e)(1)(A)(I) of the Act and as 
discussed in the Critical Circumstances Memorandum, the Department 
preliminarily finds that there is a history of dumping and material 
injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States and elsewhere 
of the subject merchandise based on the existence of foreign 
antidumping duty orders of PSF, and the ITC's preliminary determination 
of material injury. See Memorandum to Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary, AD/CVD Operations from James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances (``Critical 
Circumstance Memorandum'').
    For the reasons set forth in the Critical Circumstances Memorandum, 
we find that there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise 
over a relatively short period for Far Eastern, but not for Ningbo 
Dafa, Cixi Jiangnan, the Separate Rates Applicants and the PRC-wide 
entity. See Critical Circumstance Memorandum at Attachment 5-7. We find 
that some importers, exporters, or producers knew or should have known 
an antidumping case was pending on PSF imports from the PRC in March of 
2006 because there is record evidence that many of the Chinese 
producers begin planning the antidumping investigation. Therefore, we 
relied on a period of six months as the period, which is the maximum 
duration for the information we have available at this time, for 
comparison in preliminarily determining whether imports of the subject 
merchandise have been massive.
    Therefore, given the analysis summarized above, and described in 
more detail in the Critical Circumstances Memorandum, we preliminarily 
determine that critical circumstances exist for imports of PSF from 
exist for Far Eastern, but do not exist for imports of PSF from Cixi 
Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa, the Separate-Rates Applicants and 
the PRC-wide entity.
    We will make a final determination concerning critical 
circumstances for all producers/ exporters of subject merchandise from 
the PRC when we make our final dumping determination in this 
investigation, which is currently 75 days after the preliminary 
determination.

Factor Valuation Methodology

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOP data reported by respondents for the POI. To calculate NV, 
we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by 
publicly available surrogate values (except as discussed below). In 
selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, 
and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input 
prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. 
Specifically, we added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate 
freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the 
domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest 
seaport to the factory where appropriate. This adjustment is in 
accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision 
in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 
1997). A detailed description of all surrogate values used for 
respondents can be found in the Factor Value Memorandum and company-
specific analysis memorandum. Additionally, for detailed descriptions 
of all actual values used for market-economy inputs, see the company-
specific analysis memoranda dated December 15, 2006. See Cixi Jiangnan 
Analysis Memorandum; Far Eastern Analysis Memorandum; and Ningbo Dafa 
Analysis Memorandum.
    For this preliminary determination, the Department will use Far 
Eastern's reported market economy price of ethylene glycol from its 
unaffiliated supplier. However, the Department will continue to review 
whether Far Eastern is affiliated with its ethylene glycol supplier. If 
the Department finds that Far Eastern and its ethylene glycol supplier 
are affiliated, the Department will consider whether these purchases 
were made at arms-length in the final determination. See Far Eastern 
Analysis Memorandum.
    For this preliminary determination, in accordance with the 
Department's practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics 
in order to calculate surrogate values for the mandatory respondents' 
material inputs. In selecting the best available information for 
valuing FOP in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the 
Department's practice is to select, to the extent practicable, 
surrogate values which are non-export average values, most 
contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See 
e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned 
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 
42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). The 
record shows that data in the Indian Import Statistics represents 
import data that is

[[Page 77380]]

contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. 
Where we could not obtain publicly available information 
contemporaneous to the POI with which to value factors, we adjusted the 
surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price 
Index (``WPI'') as published in the International Financial Statistics 
of the International Monetary Fund.
    Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate 
values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to 
believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or 
suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand 
may have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these 
countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export 
subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to 
all markets from these countries may be subsidized. See Amended Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Automotive Replacement 
Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 11670 
(March 15, 2002); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's 
Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) (``CTVs from the 
PRC''). We are also directed by the legislative history not to conduct 
a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. 
See H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988). Rather, Congress directed the 
Department to base its decision on information that is available to it 
at the time it makes its determination. Therefore, we have not used 
prices from these countries either in calculating the Indian import-
based surrogate values or in calculating market-economy input values. 
In instances where a market-economy input was obtained solely from 
suppliers located in these countries, we used Indian import-based 
surrogate values to value the input. See Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass 
Windshields From The People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 
12, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 
1.
    For Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, and Ningbo Dafa, certain inputs 
into the production of the merchandise under investigation were 
purchased from market economy suppliers and paid for in market economy 
currencies. For these inputs all purchases were made from a market 
economy supplier and paid in a market economy currency, and the 
Department has therefore used the weighted-average POI price 
experienced by each respondent for these inputs. Therefore, we used the 
individual market economy prices experienced by Cixi Jiangnan, Far 
Eastern, and Ningbo Dafa when the inputs were obtained from a market 
economy, paid for in a market economy currency, and was a significant 
portion of the total purchases of that input.
    The Department used the Indian Import Statistics to value the raw 
material and packing material inputs that Far Eastern, Cixi Jiangnan, 
and Ningbo Dafa used to produce the subject merchandise during the POI, 
except where listed below. Absent adequate information on the record to 
value PSF waste (fiber, ``popcorn'' and lump), for this preliminary 
determination, we are using an average of three Indian HTS numbers, 
5503.20.00, 3915.90.42 and 3915.90.90, which represent values for raw 
PET bottles, finished PSF and plastic scrap, respectively. We note that 
the Department ``need not prove that its methodology was the only way 
or even the best way to calculate surrogate values for factors of 
production, as long as it was a reasonable way.'' See Coalition for the 
Pres. of Am. Brake Drum and Rotor Aftermakret Mfs. v. u.S.s., 23 CIT 
88, 118, 44 F.Supp.2d 229, 258 (1999); Shakeproof Assembly Components 
v. U.S., Slip-Op 06-129 (August 25, 2006). We find that, given the 
information on the record, that averaging HTS numbers 5503.20.00, 
3915.90.42 and 3915.90.90 is the most reasonable way to value PSF 
waste. For a detailed description of PSF waste and all other surrogate 
values used for respondents, see Factor Value Memorandum.
    To value electricity and diesel fuel, the Department used rates 
from Key World Energy Statistics 2003, published by the International 
Energy Agency. Because these data were not contemporaneous to the POI, 
we adjusted for inflation using WPI. See Factor Value Memorandum.
    For natural gas, we applied a surrogate value obtained from the Gas 
Authority of India Ltd. website, a supplier of natural gas in India, 
covering the period January through June 2002. In addition, based on 
the February 1, 2005, article from Chemical Weekly, we note that the 
Petroleum Ministry had been considering raising the price but no action 
was taken. Therefore, consistent with the Department's recent 
determination in Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, 
we took the average of the base and ceiling prices, added the 
transportation charge, and inflated the calculated value using the 
appropriate WPI inflator. See Surrogate Value Memo and Polyvinyl 
Alcohol From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 27991 (May 15, 2006), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
    The Department valued steam following the methodology used in the 
investigation of Certain Tissue Paper Products and Certain Crepe Paper 
Products from the People's Republic of China, but updated the natural 
gas price. See Factor Value Memorandum and Notice of Preliminary 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of 
Final Determination for Certain Tissue Paper Products, 69 FR 56407 
(September 21, 2004), unchanged in the final determination, Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Tissue 
Paper Products from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 7475 
(February 14, 2005).
    For direct, indirect, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported 
on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of 
Selected NME Countries, revised in November 2005, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. The source of these wage-rate data on 
the Import Administration's web site is the Yearbook of Labour 
Statistics 2002, ILO (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in 
Manufacturing. Because this regression-based wage rate does not 
separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, 
we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of 
labor reported by the respondent. See Factor Value Memorandum.
    Because water is essential to the production process of the subject 
merchandise, the Department considers water to be a direct material 
input, and not as overhead, and valued water with a surrogate value 
according to our practice. See Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe 
Fittings From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October 28, 
2003) and, accompanying Issue and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11. 
Although some suppliers have reported that they obtain water from a 
well, we find that whether the producer pays for water is irrelevant in 
determining whether it should be considered a direct material input. 
Further, there is no evidence on the

[[Page 77381]]

record that the Indian producer of polyester staple fiber from which we 
are obtaining an overhead financial ratio accounts for water as an 
overhead expense. The Department valued water using data from the 
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (www.midcindia.org) 
since it includes a wide range of industrial water tariffs. This source 
provides 386 industrial water rates within the Maharashtra province 
from June 2003: 193 for the ``inside industrial areas'' usage category 
and 193 for the ``outside industrial areas'' usage category. Because 
the value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rate 
for inflation. See Factor Value Memorandum.
    We used Indian transport information in order to value the freight-
in cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the best 
available information for valuing truck freight to be from 
www.infreight.com. This source provides daily rates from six major 
points of origin to five destinations in India during the POI. The 
Department obtained a price quote on the first day of each month of the 
POI from each point of origin to each destination and averaged the data 
accordingly. See Factor Value Memorandum. Consistent with the 
calculation of inland truck freight, the Department used the same 
freight distances used in the calculation of inland truck freight, as 
reported by www.infreight.com to derive a value in Rupees per kilogram 
per kilometer. See Factor Value Memorandum.
    The Department used two sources to calculate a surrogate value for 
domestic brokerage expenses. The Department averaged December 2003-
November 2004 data contained in Essar Steel's February 28, 2005, public 
version response submitted in the AD administrative review of Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India with October 2002-
September 2003 data contained in Pidilite Industries' March 9, 2004, 
public version response submitted in the AD investigation of Carbazole 
Violet Pigment 23 from India (see Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 
69 FR 67306 (November 17, 2004)). The brokerage expense data reported 
by Essar Steel and Pidilite Industries in their public versions is 
ranged data. The Department first derived an average per-unit amount 
from each source. Then the Department adjusted each average rate for 
inflation. Finally, the Department averaged the two per-unit amounts to 
derive an overall average rate for the POI. See Factor Value 
Memorandum.
    To value marine insurance, the Department obtained a price quote 
from http://www.rjgconsultants.com/insurance.html, a market-economy 
provider of marine insurance. See Factor Value Memo Memorandum. To 
value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, 
and profit, we used the audited financial statements from Indo Rama's 
2005/2006 Annual Report and Reliance Industries Ltd.'s 2005/2006 Annual 
Report. See Factor Value Memorandum.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify 
the information upon which we will rely in making our final 
determination.

Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would 
calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible 
for a separate rate in this investigation. See Initiation Notice, 70 FR 
35625, 35629. This change in practice is described in Policy Bulletin 
05.1, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The Policy Bulletin 05.1, 
states:
    ``[lsqb]w[rsqb]hile continuing the practice of assigning separate 
rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will 
now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those 
producers that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the 
exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to 
it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to 
mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate 
rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the 
weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is 
referred to as the application of ``combination rates'' because such 
rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more 
producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply 
only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced 
by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation.'' See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6.

Preliminary Determination

    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

           PSF from the PRC - Weighted-average Dumping Margins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Exporter & Producer             Weighted-Average Deposit Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Co.,                                15.30[percnt]
 Ltd.........................
Far Eastern Industries                                     10.45[percnt]
 (Shanghai) Ltd..............
Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber                                  4.39[percnt]
 Co., Ltd....................
Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber                                9.25[percnt]
 Co., Ltd....................
Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber                                  9.25[percnt]
 Co., Ltd....................
Cixi Waysun Chemical Fiber                                  9.25[percnt]
 Co., Ltd....................
Hangzhou Best Chemical Fibre                                9.25[percnt]
 Co., Ltd....................
Hangzhou Hanbang Chemical                                   9.25[percnt]
 Fibre Co., Ltd.,............
Hangzhou Huachuang Co., Ltd..                               9.25[percnt]
Hangzhou Sanxin Paper Co.,                                  9.25[percnt]
 Ltd.........................
Hangzhou Taifu Textile Fiber                                9.25[percnt]
 Co., Ltd....................
Jiaxang Fuda Chemical Fibre                                 9.25[percnt]
 Factory.....................
Nantong Luolai Chemical Fiber                               9.25[percnt]
 Co. Ltd.....................
Nanyang Textile Co., Ltd.....                               9.25[percnt]
Suzhou PolyFiber Co., Ltd....                               9.25[percnt]
Xiamen Xianglu Fiber Chemical                               9.25[percnt]
 Co..........................
Zhaoqing Tifo New Fiber Co.,                                9.25[percnt]
 Ltd.........................
Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs                                    9.25[percnt]
 Fibre Co., Ltd..............

[[Page 77382]]

 
Zhejiang Waysun Chemical                                    9.25[percnt]
 Fiber Co., Ltd..............
PRC-Wide Rate................                              44.30[percnt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of PSF from the PRC as described in the ``Scope of 
Investigation'' section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption from Ningo Dafa, Cixi Jiangnan, the Separate Rate 
Applicants and the PRC-wide entity on or after the date of publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to require 
a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average 
amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated 
above. For Far Eastern, we will direct CBP to suspend liquidation of 
any entries of PSF from the PRC as described in the ``Scope of 
Investigation'' section, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after 90 days prior to the date of publication in 
the Federal Register of our preliminary determination. The suspension 
of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at less than 
fair value. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its 
final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United 
States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by 
reason of imports of PSF, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 
importation, of the subject merchandise within 45 days of our final 
determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days 
after the date of the final verification report is issued in this 
proceeding and rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in case briefs 
no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs. A list 
of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany 
any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited 
to five pages total, including footnotes.
    In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public 
hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request 
for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing three days after 
the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14\th\ Street and Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230, 
at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by 
telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before 
the scheduled date.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 
19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address, 
and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the 
issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an 
affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case 
brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in 
that party's rebuttal brief.
    We will make our final determination no later than 75 days after 
the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to 
section 735(a) of the Act.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 15, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-22071 Filed 12-22-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S