[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 75 (Thursday, April 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20907-20910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-8299]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-583-833


Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Preliminary Results 
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 Taiwan. The period of review is May 1, 2006, through April 30, 
2007. 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 on all 
appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these 
preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in this review are 
requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and 
(2) a brief summary of the argument. We will issue the final results 
not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer or Richard Rimlinger, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0410 
and (202) 482-4477, respectively.

Background

    On May 25, 2000, the Department of Commerce (Department) published 
an antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber (PSF) from 
Taiwan. 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 1, 
2007, 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, 72 FR 23796 (May 1, 
2007). On May 31, 2007, Far Eastern Textile Limited (FET), a Taiwanese 
producer and exporter of the subject merchandise, and Wellman Inc. and 
Invista S.a.r.L. (collectively, the petitioners) requested an 
administrative review of FET. On June 29, 2007, the Department 
published a notice initiating an administrative review for PSF from 
Taiwan. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part and Deferral of 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 35690 (June 29, 2007). The period of 
review (POR) is May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007.

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by the order 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 the 
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 the order. Also 
specifically excluded from the 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 subject to the order is 
dispositive.

Fair-Value Comparisons

    To determine whether FET'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 Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), we compared the EP of individual U.S. transactions 
to the monthly weighted-

[[Page 20908]]

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'' section below.

Product Comparisons

    We compared U.S. sales to monthly weighted-average prices of 
contemporaneous sales made in the home market. We found contemporaneous 
sales of identical merchandise in the home market for all U.S. sales.

Date of Sale

    In its questionnaire responses, FET reported date of shipment as 
the date of sale for its home-market and U.S. sales. FET has stated 
that it permits home-market and U.S. customers to make order changes up 
to the date of shipment. According to FET's descriptions, the sales 
processes in the home market and to the United States are identical. 
Thus, record evidence demonstrates that the material terms of sale are 
not set before the date of invoice, which would normally result in 
using the date of invoice as the date of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). 
Because the merchandise is always shipped on or before the date of 
invoice, we are using the date of shipment as the date of sale. See, 
e.g., Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 31283 (June 6, 2007) 
(unchanged in final, 72 FR 69193, December 7, 2007), and Certain Cold-
Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 13170, 
13172-73 (March 18, 1998).

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) 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 the 
port of exportation, brokerage and handling, harbor service fees, trade 
promotion fees, containerization expenses, international freight, and 
marine insurance. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Normal Value

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 section 773(a)(1)(B) 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 purposes.

Cost of Production

    FET made sales at prices below the cost of production that we 
disregarded in the most recently completed antidumping duty 
administrative review of FET. See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From 
Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 
60476 (October 13, 2006). Because of this, there were reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that the respondent made sales of the 
foreign like product in its comparison market at prices below the cost 
of production (COP) within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.
    We calculated the COP on a product-specific basis, based on the sum 
of the respondent's costs of materials and fabrication for the foreign 
like product plus amounts for general and administrative (G&A) 
expenses, interest expenses, and the costs of all expenses incidental 
to preparing the foreign like product for shipment in accordance with 
section 773(b)(3) of the Act.
    We relied on COP information FET submitted in its cost 
questionnaire responses except we adjusted FET's reported cost of 
manufacturing to account for purchases of purified terephthalic acid 
and mono ethylene glycol from affiliated parties at non-arm's-length 
prices in accordance with the major-input rule pursuant to section 
773(f)(3) of the Act.
    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. The prices were 
exclusive of any applicable movement charges, packing expenses, 
warranties, and indirect selling expenses. In determining whether to 
disregard home-market sales made at prices below their COP, we 
examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, 
whether such sales were made within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities and at prices which permitted the recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time.
    We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of the 
respondent's home-market sales were at prices below the COP and, in 
addition, 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) of the Act.

Calculation of Normal Value

    We calculated NV based on the price FET reported for home-market 
sales to unaffiliated customers which we determined were within the 
ordinary course of trade. We made adjustments for differences in 
domestic and export packing expenses in accordance with sections 
773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. We also made adjustments, 
consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, for inland freight 
from the plant to the customer and expenses associated with loading the 
merchandise onto the truck to be shipped. 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., imputed 
credit expenses and warranties) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses 
(i.e., imputed credit expenses and bank charges).

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 as the EP. Sales are made at different levels of 
trade 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. See 
19 CFR 351.412(c)(2); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 
South Africa,

[[Page 20909]]

62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997).
    In order to determine whether a respondent made comparison-market 
sales at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, 
we review the distribution system in each market (i.e., the chain of 
distribution), including selling functions, class of customer (customer 
category), and the level of selling expenses incurred for each type of 
sale. The marketing process in the U.S. 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. 
In performing this evaluation, we consider the narrative responses of 
the respondent to determine where in the chain of distribution the sale 
appears to occur. Selling functions associated with a particular chain 
of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a 
particular market. 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), we consider 
the starting prices before any adjustments. See Micron Technology, Inc. 
v. United States, et al., 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-15 (CAFC 2001) (affirming 
this methodology).
    When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the 
foreign like product in the comparison market at the same level of 
trade as the EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a 
different level of trade in the comparison market. In comparing EP 
sales at a different level of trade in the comparison market, where 
available data show that the difference in level of trade affects price 
comparability, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    FET reported two channels of distribution (i.e., direct sales to an 
end-user and direct sales to a distributor) and a single level of trade 
in the U.S. market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have 
organized the common selling functions into four major categories: 
sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory 
and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty services. Because the 
sales process and selling functions FET performed for selling to the 
U.S. market did not vary by individual customers, the necessary 
condition for finding they constitute different levels of trade was not 
met. Accordingly, we determined that all of FET's U.S. sales 
constituted a single level of trade.
    FET reported a single channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales 
to end-users) and a single level of trade in the home market. Because 
the sales process and selling functions FET performed for selling to 
home-market customers did not vary by individual customers, we 
determined that all of FET's home-market sales constituted a single 
level of trade.
    Finally, because there is only one home-market level of trade, it 
is not possible to calculate a level-of-trade adjustment. In addition, 
because all U.S. sales were EP sales, no offset contemplated for 
constructed export-price sales is appropriate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a 
dumping margin of 2.15 percent exists for FET for the period May 1, 
2006, through April 30, 2007.

Public Comment

    We will disclose the documents resulting from our analysis to 
parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of 
this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days 
of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. If a hearing 
is requested, the Department will notify interested parties of the 
hearing schedule.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results of this review. Because we intend to conduct a verification 
prior to the issuance of the final results, we will notify interested 
parties of the schedule for filing case briefs and rebuttal briefs 
after we issue the verification report.
    We intend to issue the final results of this review, including the 
results of our analysis of issues raised in any submitted written 
comments, within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary 
results are issued.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates 
for merchandise subject to this review. We will issue instructions to 
CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
period of review produced by the respondent for which it did not know 
its 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).

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 Taiwan 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)(2) of the 
Act: (1) the cash-deposit rate for FET will be the rate established in 
the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise 
exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but 
covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash-deposit rate 
will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most 
recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 
review, a prior 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; (4) if 
neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this 
review, the cash-deposit rate will be 7.31 percent, the all-others rate 
established in 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).

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.


[[Page 20910]]


    Dated: April 10, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-8299 Filed 4-16- 08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-S