[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5964-5967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2593]


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

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 (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
polyester staple fiber (PSF) from Taiwan. The period of review is May 
1, 2008, through April 30, 2009. 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 
(CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. 
We will issue the final results not later than 120 days after the date 
of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael A. Romani 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) 482-0198 or (202) 482-4477, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 24, 2009, the Department published a notice initiating an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain PSF from 
Taiwan covering the respondents Far Eastern Textiles Ltd. (FET) and Nan 
Ya Plastics Corporation (Nan Ya). See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation 
in Part, 74 FR 30052 (June 24, 2009). We have rescinded the review with 
respect to Nan Ya. See Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Rescission 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, 74 FR 41684 (August 
18, 2009).

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, we compared export price to normal 
value 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 export price of individual U.S. 
transactions to the monthly weighted-average normal value 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 in 
accordance with section 771(16) of the Act.

Date of Sale

    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that the 
Department normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the 
producer's or exporter's

[[Page 5965]]

records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale. 
The regulation provides further that the Department may use a date 
other than the date of the invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a 
different date better reflects the date on which the material terms of 
sale are established. The Department has a long-standing practice of 
finding that, where shipment date precedes invoice date, shipment date 
better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are 
established. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 69 FR 76918 
(December 23, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 10; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams From Germany, 67 FR 35497 (May 
20, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 
2.
    With respect to FET's U.S. market sales, shipment date occurs on or 
before the date of invoice. The date of invoice is the date on which 
the Government Uniform Invoice is issued. Further, based on record 
evidence, all material terms of sale are established at the time of 
shipment and do not change in the subsequent time prior to the issuance 
of the invoice. Therefore, we used the date of shipment as the date of 
sale in accordance with our practice.
    With respect to most of FET's home-market sales, shipment date 
occurs on or before the invoice date. Further, based on record 
evidence, all material terms of sale are established at the time of 
shipment and do not change in the subsequent time prior to the issuance 
of the invoice. We note that FET had some home-market sales in which 
invoice dates preceded shipment dates; for these home-market sales, we 
used the invoice date as the date of sale in accordance with our 
practice. For all other home-market sales, we used shipment date as 
date of sale.

Export Price

    For sales to the United States, we calculated export price 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 export price based on the free-on-board 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, inland insurance in Taiwan, brokerage and 
handling, harbor service fees, trade promotion fees, and 
containerization expenses. 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 normal 
value, we compared the volume of 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

    We disregarded below-cost sales by FET in the last administrative 
review of the order completed prior to the initiation of this review. 
See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 18348 (April 22, 2009); 
see also Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 6136, 6137-38 
(February 5, 2009). Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 
the Act, 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 within the meaning of 
section 773(b) of the Act.
    We calculated the cost of production 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 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 cost-of-production information FET submitted in its 
response to our cost questionnaire except we adjusted FET's reported 
cost of manufacturing to account for purchases of purified terephthalic 
acid and monoethylene glycol from affiliated parties at non-arm's-
length prices in accordance with the major-input rule of section 
773(f)(3) of the Act.
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average cost-of-production figures for the period of review 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 cost of production. 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 cost of production and in 
accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D) of the Act, we 
examined 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 cost of 
production 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 disregarded these 
sales and used the remaining sales of the same product as the basis for 
determining normal value in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 
Act.

Calculation of Normal Value

    We calculated normal value 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 expenses 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 in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410. We made these 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).

[[Page 5966]]

    In addition, FET reported one transaction in its home-market sales 
database for which it acknowledged it had reason to know would be 
exported to the People's Republic of China. See FET's December 23, 
2009, response to our supplemental questionnaire. Because FET knew or 
had reason to know at the time of sale that this transaction was 
destined for export, we removed it from our calculation of normal value 
in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine normal value based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade as the export price. Pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.412(c)(1), the normal-value level of trade is based on the 
starting price of the sales in the comparison market or, when normal 
value is based on constructed value, the starting price of the sales 
from which we derive selling, general, and administrative expenses and 
profit. For export-price sales, the U.S. level of trade is based on the 
starting price of the sales in the U.S. market, which is usually from 
the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether comparison-market sales are at a different 
level of trade than export-price sales, we examine stages in the 
marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution 
between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 
351.412(c)(2). If the comparison-market sales are at a different level 
of trade and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested 
in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which 
normal value is based and the comparison-market sales at the level of 
trade of the export transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment 
under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    In this review, we obtained information from FET regarding the 
marketing stages involved in making its reported home-market and U.S. 
sales for each channel of distribution. FET reported one channel of 
distribution (i.e., direct sales to distributers) 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.
    We found that the export-price level of trade was similar to the 
home-market level of trade in terms of selling activities. 
Specifically, the levels of expense were similar for the selling 
functions FET provided in both markets. Accordingly, we considered the 
export-price level of trade to be similar to the home-market level of 
trade and not at a different stage of distribution than the home-market 
level of trade. Therefore, we matched export-price sales to sales at 
the same level of trade in the home market and no level-of-trade 
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is necessary.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a 
dumping margin of 2.11 percent exists for FET for the period May 1, 
2008, through April 30, 2009.

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. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 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. 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. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 
review 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.
    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 publication of this notice.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Although FET indicated that it was 
not the importer of record for any of its sales to the United States 
during the period of review, it reported the name of the importer of 
record for all of its U.S. sales. Because FET reported the entered 
value for all of its U.S. sales and in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate 
for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins we 
calculated for all U.S. sales to the importer and dividing this amount 
by the total entered value of those sales. We intend to 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) (Assessment 
Clarification). This clarification will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the period of review produced by FET for which it 
did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In 
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed 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 Assessment Clarification.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for 
all shipments of PSF from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication 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

[[Page 5967]]

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.

    Dated: February 1, 2010.
Carole A. Showers,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations.
[FR Doc. 2010-2593 Filed 2-4-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S