[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 131 (Friday, July 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40329-40336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17207]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-905]


Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, and Intent To Revoke Order in Part

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting the 
third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
polyester staple fiber from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') 
for the period of review (``POR'') June 1, 2009, through May 31, 2010. 
The Department has preliminarily determined that sales have not been 
made below normal value (``NV'') with respect to Ningbo Dafa Chemical 
Fiber Co., Ltd. (``Ningbo Dafa'') and Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber Co., 
Ltd. (``Cixi Santai'') during the POR. If these preliminary results are 
adopted in our final results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on entries 
of subject merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific 
assessment rates are above de minimis.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days 
from the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'').

DATES: Effective Date: July 8, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Huang or Steven Hampton, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4047 or (202) 
482-0116, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 1, 2007, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on certain

[[Page 40330]]

polyester staple fiber from the PRC. See Notice of Antidumping Duty 
Order: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of 
China, 72 FR 30545 (June 1, 2007) (``Order''). On July 28, 2010, the 
Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of 
an administrative review of certain polyester staple fiber from the 
People's Republic of China covering the period June 1, 2009, through 
May 31, 2010, for 11 companies.\1\ See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 44225 (July 28, 2010) (``Initiation 
Notice''). On February 10, 2011, the Department published in the 
Federal Register a notice extending the time period for issuing the 
preliminary results by 90 days. See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from 
the People's Republic of China: Extension of Preliminary Results of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 7532 (February 10, 2011). 
On May 17, 2011, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
second notice extending the time period for issuing the preliminary 
results by an additional 30 days. See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber 
from the People's Republic of China: Full Extension of Preliminary 
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 28420 (May 
17, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Those companies are: Far Eastern Industries, Ltd., 
(Shanghai) and Far Eastern Polychem Industries; Cixi Sansheng 
Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Cixi 
Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Sanxin Paper Co., Ltd.; 
Nantong Loulai Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Nan Yang Textile Co., Ltd.; 
Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Zhaoqing Tifo New Fiber Co., 
Ltd.; Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; and Huvis Sichuan 
Chemical Fiber Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respondent Selection

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter or producer of the 
subject merchandise. However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the 
Department discretion to limit its examination to a reasonable number 
of exporters or producers if, because of the large number of exporters 
or producers, it is not practicable to examine all exporters or 
producers involved in the review.
    On August 12, 2010, the Department released CBP data for entries of 
the subject merchandise during the POR under administrative protective 
order (``APO'') to all interested parties having an APO, inviting 
comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection. The 
Department received comments from parties on August 24 and 25, 2010.
    On October 6, 2010, the Department issued its respondent selection 
memorandum after assessing its resources and determining that it could 
reasonably examine two exporters subject to this review. Pursuant to 
section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department selected Ningbo Dafa 
and Cixi Santai as mandatory respondents.\2\ The Department sent 
antidumping duty questionnaires to Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai on 
October 13, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, Office 9, Import 
Administration, from Steven Hampton, International Trade Compliance 
Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, regarding 3rd 
Administrative Review of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the 
PRC: Selection of Respondents for Individual Review, dated October 
6, 2010 (``Respondent Selection Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai submitted the Section A Questionnaire 
Responses on November 10, 2010, the Section C & D Questionnaire 
Responses on December 3, 2010. The Department issued supplemental 
questionnaires to Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai between January and 
February 2011 to which both companies responded.

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an 
administrative review in whole or in part, if the party that requested 
the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of 
publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The 
regulation further states that the Secretary may extend the deadline if 
it is reasonable to do so. On August 17, 2010, Nantong Luolai Chemical 
Fiber Co., Ltd., NanYang Textiles Co., Ltd., and Cixi Sansheng Chemical 
Fiber Co., Ltd. (``Sansheng'') timely withdrew their requests for 
review. On September 9, 2010, Fibertex Corporation (``Fibertex''), an 
importer of polyester staple fiber from the PRC, timely withdrew its 
request for a review with respect to Far Eastern Industries, Ltd. 
(Shanghai) and Far Eastern Polychem Industries. On September 20, 2010, 
Cixi Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. timely withdrew its request for 
review. On October 15, 2010, Fibertex timely withdrew its request for a 
review with respect to Sansheng.
    Because these parties withdrew their respective requests for an 
administrative review within 90 days of the date of publication of the 
notice of initiation, and there were no outstanding requests for an 
administrative review for these exporters, the Department rescinded 
this review with respect to the five exporters, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.213(d)(1). See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's 
Republic of China: Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 70906 (November 19, 2010).

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data

    On November 8, 2010, the Department sent interested parties a 
letter inviting comments on surrogate country selection and surrogate 
value (``SV'') data.\3\ No parties provided comments with respect to 
selection of a surrogate country or information to value factors of 
production (``FOP'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See the Department's Letter to All Interested Parties, 
regarding Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, dated 
November 8, 2010 (``Surrogate Country List'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order 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 of the order: 
(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 5503.20.0065. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the merchandise under the order is dispositive.

Verification

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), between March 21 and March 30, 
2011 the Department conducted verification of Ningbo Dafa and Cixi 
Santai's

[[Page 40331]]

separate rate status, sales and FOP submissions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Memorandum to the File through Scot T. Fullerton, 
Program Manager, Office 9, from Jerry Huang, International Trade 
Analyst, ``Verification of the Sales and Factors of Production 
Response of Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd. in the 2009-10 
Administrative Review of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the 
People's Republic of China,'' dated June 30, 2011; Memorandum to the 
File through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9, from 
Steven Hampton, International Trade Analyst, ``Verification of the 
Sales and Factors of Production Response of Cixi Santai Chemical 
Fiber Co. Ltd. in the 2009-10 Administrative Review of Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China,'' dated 
June 30, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Market Economy (``NME'') Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as an 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, e.g., Brake Rotors from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/
2005 Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New 
Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 2006). None of the parties to 
this proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly, the 
Department calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, 
which applies to NME countries.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department investigates imports from an NME country and 
available information does not permit the Department to determine NV 
pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act, then, pursuant to section 
773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department bases NV on an NME producer's 
FOPs, to the extent possible, in one or more market-economy countries 
that (1) are at a level of economic development comparable to that of 
the NME country, and (2) are significant producers of comparable 
merchandise. The Department determined Colombia, India, Indonesia, 
Peru, the Philippines, and Thailand are countries comparable to the PRC 
in terms of economic development.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Surrogate Country List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on publicly available information (e.g., production data), 
the Department determines India to be a reliable source for SVs because 
India is at a comparable level of economic development pursuant to 
section 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a significant producer of subject 
merchandise, and has publicly available and reliable data. Accordingly, 
the Department has selected India as the surrogate country for purposes 
of valuing the FOPs because it meets the Department's criteria for 
surrogate country selection.

Separate Rates

    In AD proceedings involving NME countries, it is the Department's 
practice to begin with a rebuttable presumption that the export 
activities of all companies within the country are subject to 
government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping 
duty rate. See, e.g., Policy Bulletin 05.1; \6\ see also Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative 
Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper Products from the 
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 53079, 53082 (September 8, 2006); 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 
and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303, 
29307 (May 22, 2006) (``Diamond Sawblades''). 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 affirmatively 
demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to 
a separate rate. See, e.g., Diamond Sawblades, 71 FR at 29307. 
Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both 
de jure and de facto government control over export activities. Id. 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, 20589 (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, 22586-87 (May 
2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). However, if the Department determines 
that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, 
then a separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it 
is independent from government control. See, e.g., Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from the 
People's Republic of China, 72 FR 52355, 52356 (September 13, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Separate Rates and Combination Rates in Antidumping 
Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries, 70 FR 17233 
(April 5, 2005), also available at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the two mandatory respondents, Ningbo Dafa and Cixi 
Santai, the Department received separate rate applications or 
certifications from the following four companies (``Separate-Rate 
Applicants''): Hangzhou Sanxin Paper Co., Ltd.; Huvis Sichuan Chemical 
Fiber Corporation; Zhaoqing Tifo New Fiber Co., Ltd.; and Zhejiang 
Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.

a. 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) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. The evidence provided by Ningbo Dafa, 
Cixi Santai, and the Separate-Rate Applicants supports a preliminary 
finding of de jure absence of government control based on the 
following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with 
the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) there are 
applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the 
companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of companies. See, e.g., Ningbo Dafa's Section A 
Questionnaire Response, dated November 10, 2010, at Exhibit A2.

b. Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a government 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

[[Page 40332]]

determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of 
government control which would preclude the Department from assigning 
separate rates. The evidence provided by Ningbo Dafa, Cixi Santai, and 
the Separate-Rate Applicants supports a preliminary finding of de facto 
absence of government control based on the following: (1) The companies 
set their own export prices independent of the government and without 
the approval of a government authority; (2) the companies have 
authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) the 
companies have autonomy from the government in making decisions 
regarding the selection of management; and (4) there is no restriction 
on any of the companies' use of export revenue.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., Ningbo Dafa's Section A Questionnaire Response at 
2-10; Cixi Santai's Section A Questionnaire Response at 1-11; 
Hangzhou Sanxin Co., Ltd.'s Separate Rate Certification, dated 
September 27, 2010, at 6-7; Zhaoqing Tifo New Fibre Co., Ltd.'s 
Separate Rate Certification, dated September 27, 2010, at 6-7; 
Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd.'s Separate Rate 
Certification, dated September 27, 2010, at 5-6; and Huvis Sichuan 
Co. Ltd.'s Separate Rate Application, dated September 27, 2010, at 
15-23. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that Ningbo 
Dafa, Cixi Santai, and the Separate-Rate Applicants have established 
that they qualify for a separate rate under the criteria established 
by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rate Calculation

    In the ``Respondent Selection'' section above, we stated that the 
Department employed a limited examination methodology, as it did not 
have the resources to examine all companies for which a review request 
was made, and selected two exporters, Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai, as 
mandatory respondents in this review. The remaining companies submitted 
timely information as requested by the Department and thus, the 
Department has preliminary determined to treat these companies as 
cooperative Separate-Rate Applicants.
    The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the 
establishment of a rate to be applied to individual companies not 
selected for examination where the Department limited its examination 
in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. 
The Department's practice in cases involving limited selection based on 
exporters accounting for the largest volumes of trade has been to look 
to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for 
calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when 
calculating the rate for respondents we did not examine in an 
administrative review. Consequently, the Department generally weight-
averages the rates calculated for the mandatory respondents, excluding 
zero and de minimis rates and rates based entirely on facts available 
(``FA'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and 
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 8273 (February 
13, 2008) (unchanged in Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and New Shipper Review, 73 FR 49162 (August 20, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is the third administrative review of this order. In these 
preliminary results, as well as in the two prior administrative 
reviews, the two selected mandatory respondents received de minimis 
margins. As a result, in this case the Department must use another 
reasonable method to determine the margin applicable to the separate 
rate respondents. The Department's practice is first to apply the most 
recently calculated margin from a prior segment for any of the current 
separate rate respondents. In this case, the only other company with a 
calculated margin during this order is not currently a separate rate 
respondent. As a result of there being no other non-de minimis or non-
AFA-based margins available, the Department has used the weighted-
average margin from the investigation to apply to the separate rate 
respondents in this case. Pursuant to this method, we are assigning the 
rate of 4.44 percent, the most recent positive rate (from the less-
than-fair-value (``LTFV'') investigation) calculated for cooperative 
separate rate respondents. Entities receiving this rate are identified 
by name in the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section of this 
notice.

Date of Sale

    Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai reported the invoice date as the date 
of sale because they claim that, for their U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise made during the POR, the material terms of sale were 
established on the invoice date. The Department preliminarily 
determines that the invoice date is the most appropriate date to use as 
Ningbo Dafa's and Cixi Santai's date of sale is in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.401(i) and the Department's long-standing practice of 
determining the date of sale.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of certain polyester staple fiber to the 
United States by Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai were made at less-than-
fair-value, the Department compared the export price (``EP'') to NV, as 
described in the ``U.S. Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections below.

U.S. Price

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department 
calculated the EP for the sales to the United States from Ningbo Dafa 
and Cixi Santai because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was 
made before the date of importation. The Department calculated EP based 
on the price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In 
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, the 
Department deducted foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling 
from the starting price to unaffiliated purchasers. Each of these 
services was either provided by an NME vendor or paid for using an NME 
currency. Thus, the Department based the deduction of these movement 
charges on SVs.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using an FOP 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 FOPs because the presence of government controls on various 
aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of 
production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will 
normally use publicly available information to value the FOPs, but when 
a producer sources an input from a market economy (``ME'') country and 
pays for it in an ME currency, the Department may value the factor 
using the actual price paid for the input. During the POR, both Ningbo 
Dafa and Cixi Santai reported that they purchased certain inputs from 
an ME supplier and paid for the inputs in an ME currency. See Ningbo 
Dafa Section C & D Questionnaire Response, dated December 3, 2010, at 
D-7-8 and Exhibit D-3; and Cixi Santai's Section C & D Questionnaire 
Response, dated

[[Page 40333]]

December 3, 2010, at Exhibit D-3. The Department confirmed that these 
inputs were produced in ME countries through supplemental 
questionnaires and again at verification. The Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that ME input prices are the best available 
information for valuing an input when the total volume of the input 
purchased from all ME sources during the period of investigation or 
review exceeds 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased 
from all sources during the period. See Antidumping Methodologies: 
Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty 
Drawback; and Request for Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717-18 (October 19, 
2006) (``Antidumping Methodologies'').
    In these cases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds 
to rebut the Department's presumption, the Department will use the 
weighted-average ME purchase price to value the input. Alternatively, 
when the volume of an NME firm's purchases of an input from ME 
suppliers during the period is below 33 percent of its total volume of 
purchases of the input during the period, but where these purchases are 
otherwise valid and there is no reason to disregard the prices, the 
Department will weight-average the ME purchase price with an 
appropriate SV according to their respective shares of the total volume 
of purchases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to 
rebut the presumption. See Antidumping Methodologies. When a firm has 
made ME input purchases that may have been dumped or subsidized, are 
not bona fide, or are otherwise not acceptable for use in a dumping 
calculation, the Department will exclude them from the numerator of the 
ratio to ensure a fair determination of whether valid ME purchases meet 
the 33-percent threshold. See Antidumping Methodologies.
    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, for subject 
merchandise produced by Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai, the Department 
calculated NV based on the FOPs reported by Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai 
for the POR. The Department used Indian import data and other publicly 
available Indian sources in order to calculate surrogate values for 
Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai's FOPs. To calculate NV, the Department 
multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by publicly 
available Indian surrogate values. The Department's practice when 
selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs is to select, 
to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are product-specific, 
representative of a broad-market average, publicly available, 
contemporaneous with the POR and exclusive of taxes and duties. See, 
e.g., Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 
48195 (August 18, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 2. The record shows that data in the Indian Import 
Statistics, as well as those from the other Indian sources, are 
contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See 
Memorandum to the File through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, 
Office 9 from Jerry Huang, International Trade Analyst: Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC''): Surrogate Values for the 
Preliminary Results (``Prelim Surrogate Value Memo'') dated June 30, 
2011. In those instances where the Department could not obtain publicly 
available information contemporaneous to the POR with which to value 
factors, the Department adjusted the SVs using, where appropriate, the 
Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as published in the 
International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund, 
a printout of which is attached to the Prelim Surrogate Value Memo at 
Attachment 3. Where necessary, the Department adjusted SVs for 
inflation and exchange rates, taxes, and the Department converted all 
applicable items to a per-kilogram basis.
    As appropriate, the Department adjusted input prices by including 
freight costs to render them delivered prices. Specifically, the 
Department 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 we relied on an import value. This adjustment is in 
accordance with the decision of the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. 
United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
    The Department used Indian import data from the Global Trade Atlas 
(``GTA'') published by Global Trade Information Services, Inc. 
(``GTIS''), which is sourced from the Directorate General of Commercial 
Intelligence & Statistics, Indian Ministry of Commerce, to determine 
the surrogate values for certain raw materials, by-products, and 
packing material inputs. The Department has disregarded statistics from 
NMEs, countries with generally available export subsidies, and 
countries listed as ``unidentified'' in GTA in calculating the average 
value. In accordance with the OTCA 1988 legislative history, the 
Department continues to apply its long-standing practice of 
disregarding SVs if it has a reason to believe or suspect the source 
data may be subsidized.\10\ In this regard, the Department has 
previously found that it is appropriate to disregard such prices from 
India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand because we have determined 
that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry specific 
export subsidies.\11\ Based on the existence of these subsidy programs 
that were generally available to all exporters and producers in these 
countries at the time of the POR, the Department finds that it is 
reasonable to infer that all exporters from Indonesia, South Korea and 
Thailand may have benefitted from these subsidies. For a detailed 
description of all SVs used for Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai, see Prelim 
Surrogate Value Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. Report 
to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. 
(1988) (``OTCA 1988'') at 590.
    \11\ See e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing 
Duty Order on Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, 75 FR 13257 
(March 19, 2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
4-5; Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia, 70 
FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at 4; see Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from Thailand: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Determination, 
66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department valued electricity using the updated electricity 
price data for small, medium, and large industries, as published by the 
Central Electricity Authority, an administrative body of the Government 
of India, in its publication titled Electricity Tariff & Duty and 
Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India, dated March 2008. These 
electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly-available 
information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to small, 
medium, and large industries in India. We did not inflate this value 
because utility rates represent current rates, as indicated by the 
effective dates listed for each of the rates provided.
    The Department valued water using data from the Maharashtra 
Industrial Development Corporation (``MIDC'') as it includes a wide 
range of industrial water tariffs. To value water, we used the average 
rate for industrial use from MIDC water rates at http://www.midcindia.org. Section 733(c) of the Act provides that the 
Department will value the FOPs in NME cases using the best available 
information regarding

[[Page 40334]]

the value of such factors in a ME country or countries considered to be 
appropriate by the administering authority. The Act requires that when 
valuing FOP, the Department utilize, to the extent possible, the prices 
or costs of factors of production in one or more ME countries that are 
(1) at a comparable level of economic development and (2) significant 
producers of comparable merchandise. See section 773(c)(4) of the Act.
    Previously, the Department used regression-based wages that 
captured the worldwide relationship between per capita Gross National 
Income (``GNI'') and hourly manufacturing wages, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(3), to value the respondent's cost of labor. However, on May 
14, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``CAFC''), in 
Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 
(``Dorbest''), invalidated 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). As a consequence of 
the CAFC's ruling in Dorbest, the Department no longer relies on the 
regression-based wage rate methodology described in its regulations. On 
February 18, 2011, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
request for public comment on the interim methodology, and the data 
sources. See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, Request for 
Comment, 76 FR 9544 (Feb. 18, 2011).
    On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for 
valuing the labor input in NME antidumping proceedings. See Antidumping 
Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies: Valuing 
the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 36092 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor 
Methodologies''). In Labor Methodologies, the Department determined 
that the best methodology to value the labor input is to use industry-
specific labor rates from the primary surrogate country. Additionally, 
the Department determined that the best data source for industry-
specific labor rates is Chapter 6A: Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from 
the International Labor Organization (ILO) Yearbook of Labor Statistics 
(``Yearbook'').
    In these preliminary results, the Department calculated the labor 
input using the wage method described in Labor Methodologies. To value 
the mandatory respondents' labor input, the Department relied on data 
reported by India to the ILO in Chapter 6A of the Yearbook. The 
Department further finds the two-digit description under ISIC-Revision 
3 (``Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products'') to be the best 
available information on the record because it is specific to the 
industry being examined, and is therefore derived from industries that 
produce comparable merchandise. The explanatory notes for this sub-
classification state that this sub-classification includes the 
manufacture of man-made fibers. Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of 
the Yearbook, the Department calculated the labor input using labor 
data reported by India to the ILO under Sub-Classification 24 of the 
ISIC-Revision 3 standard, in accordance with Section 773(c)(4) of the 
Act. For these preliminary results, the calculated industry-specific 
wage rate is Rs. 74.58. A more detailed description of the wage rate 
calculation methodology is provided in the Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
    As stated above, the Department used Indian ILO data reported under 
Chapter 6A of Yearbook, which reflects all costs related to labor, 
including wages, benefits, housing, training, etc. Since the financial 
statement used to calculate the surrogate financial ratios includes 
itemized detail of indirect labor costs, the Department made 
adjustments to the surrogate financial ratios. See Labor Methodologies; 
see also Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
    The Department valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit 
average rate calculated from data on the Infobanc Web site: http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this 
Web site contains inland freight truck rates between many large Indian 
cities. Since this value is not contemporaneous with the POR, the 
Department deflated the rate using WPI.
    The Department valued brokerage and handling using a price list of 
export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in 
India. The price list is compiled based on a survey case study of the 
procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by 
ocean transport in India that is published in Doing Business 2010: 
India, by the World Bank. The study assumes that payment is secured by 
letters of credit (``LC''), and the time and cost for issuing and 
securing a LC is included in the value. As Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai 
do not export using LC, we have accordingly deducted the necessary 
costs of securing LC based on the schedule of charges published by the 
Bank of India. See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
(``SG&A'') expenses, and profit, the Department used the audited 
financial statements of Ganesh Polytex Limited.
    We are preliminarily granting a by-product offset to Ningbo Dafa 
for waste paper and waste bottle hood. We are also preliminarily 
granting a by-product offset to Ningbo Dafa for waste fiber based on 
its production of waste fiber, as opposed to its POR reintroduction of 
waste fiber. Similarly, we are preliminarily granting a by-product 
offset to Cixi Santai for polypropylene (``PP'') waste and polyethylene 
terephthalate (``PET'') waste.

Currency Conversion

    Where necessary, the Department 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. We relied on the daily exchange rates 
posted on the Import Administration Web site (http://www.trade.gov/ia/
). See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.

Notice of Intent To Revoke Order, in Part

    On June 28, 2010, Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai requested revocation 
of the antidumping duty order with respect to their sales of subject 
merchandise, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e). These requests were 
accompanied by certifications, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1) that: 
(1) Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai have sold the subject merchandise at 
not less than NV for at least three consecutive years and that they 
will not sell the merchandise at less than NV in the future; and (2) 
Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai sold subject merchandise to the United 
States in commercial quantities for a period of at least three 
consecutive years. Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai also agreed to immediate 
reinstatement of the antidumping duty order, as long as any exporter or 
producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that, 
subsequent to its revocation, they sold the subject merchandise at less 
than NV.
    Pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act, the Department ``may revoke, 
in whole or in part'' an antidumping duty order upon completion of a 
review under section 751(a) of the Act. In determining whether to 
revoke an antidumping duty order in part, the Department considers: (1) 
Whether the company in question has sold subject merchandise at not 
less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) 
whether during each of the three consecutive years for which the 
company sold the merchandise at not less than normal value, it sold the 
merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities;

[[Page 40335]]

and (3) the company has agreed in writing to its immediate 
reinstatement in the order, as long as any exporter or producer is 
subject to the order, if the Department concludes that the company, 
subsequent to revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than 
NV.\12\ We have preliminarily determined that the request from both 
Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai meets all of the criteria under 19 CFR 
351.222(e)(1). Our preliminary margin calculation confirms that Ningbo 
Dafa and Cixi Santai sold subject merchandise at not less than NV 
during the current review period. See the ``Preliminary Results of the 
Review'' section below. In addition, we have confirmed that Ningbo Dafa 
and Cixi Santai sold subject merchandise at not less than NV in the two 
previous administrative reviews in which they were individually 
examined (i.e., their dumping margins were zero or de minimis).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1).
    \13\ See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Second 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 2886 (January 18, 
2011); First Administrative Review of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber 
From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 1336 (January 11, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our examination of the sales data submitted by Ningbo Dafa 
and Cixi Santai, we preliminarily determine that they both sold the 
subject merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities in 
each of the consecutive years cited by Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai to 
support their requests for revocation.\14\ Thus, we preliminarily find 
that Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai had zero or de minimis dumping margins 
for the last three years and sold subject merchandise in commercial 
quantities in each of these years. Also, we preliminarily determine, 
pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), that 
the application of the antidumping duty order with respect to Ningbo 
Dafa and Cixi Santai is no longer warranted for the following reasons: 
(1) The companies had a zero or de minimis margin for a period of at 
least three consecutive years; (2) the companies have agreed to 
immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department finds that it 
has resumed making sales at less than NV; and, (3) the continued 
application of the order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping. 
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that subject merchandise produced 
and exported by Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai qualify for revocation from 
the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber from the 
PRC and that the order with respect to such merchandise should be 
revoked. If these preliminary findings are affirmed in our final 
results, we will revoke this order, in part, with respect to certain 
polyester staple fiber produced and exported by Ningbo Dafa and Cixi 
Santai and, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), terminate the 
suspension of liquidation for any of the merchandise in question that 
is entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
June 1, 2010, and instruct CBP to release any cash deposits for such 
entries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Memorandum to the File entitled, ``Analysis of 
Commercial Quantities for Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd.'s 
Request for Revocation,'' dated June 30, 2011; Memorandum to the 
File entitled, ``Analysis of Commercial Quantities for Cixi Santai 
Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd.'s Request for Revocation,'' also dated June 
30, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Results of Review

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following 
weighted-average dumping margins exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                Average
                    Manufacturer/exporter                       Margin
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.........................        0.00
Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber Co...............................        0.00
Hangzhou Sanxin Paper Co., Ltd..............................        4.44
Zhaoqing Tifo New Fiber Co., Ltd............................        4.44
Huvis Sichuan Chemical Fiber Corporation....................        4.44
Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.....................        4.44
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of this 
administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly available 
information to value the factors of production within 20 days after the 
date of publication of these preliminary results. Interested parties 
must provide the Department with supporting documentation for the 
publicly available information to value each FOP. Additionally, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this 
administrative review, interested parties may submit factual 
information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted 
by an interested party less than ten days before, on, or after, the 
applicable deadline for submission of such factual information. 
However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new 
information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects 
information recently placed on the record. The Department generally 
cannot accept the submission of additional, previously absent-from-the-
record alternative SV information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See 
Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 
72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 2.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 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, 
Room 1117, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone 
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 
discussed. Id. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those 
raised in the respective case briefs. Case briefs from interested 
parties may be submitted not later than 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five 
days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case 
briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit 
with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary 
of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) 
and (d).
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in 
any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of 
publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by these reviews. The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final 
results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we 
calculated exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates 
for the merchandise subject to this review. Where the respondent has 
reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer (or customer)-
specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated 
for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and

[[Page 40336]]

dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each 
importer (or customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or 
customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, we will 
apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importers'/
customers' entries during the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    Where we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales, we 
calculated a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the antidumping 
duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and 
dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or 
customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To determine whether the duty 
assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set 
forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer (or customer)-
specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where 
an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is zero or de 
minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without 
regard to antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
    For the companies receiving a separate rate that were not selected 
for individual review, the assessment rate will be based on the rate 
listed above.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the separate 
rate companies listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established 
in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de 
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required 
for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and 
non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published 
for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate 
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 44.3 percent; 
and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not 
received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate 
applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. 
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
further notice.

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.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: June 30, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-17207 Filed 7-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P