[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32503-32507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13372]



[[Page 32503]]

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

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 (POR) is 
May 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011. This review covers imports of 
certain PSF from one producer/exporter, Far Eastern New Century 
Corporation (FENC). 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. We are also rescinding the review in part 
for one firm, Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, for which the request for 
review was withdrawn in a timely manner. 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.

DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael A. Romani or Minoo Hatten, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1, 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) 482-1690, respectively.

Background

    On June 28, 2011, the Department published a notice initiating an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain PSF from 
Taiwan covering the respondents FENC (formerly known as Far Eastern 
Textiles Co., Ltd.\1\) and Nan Ya Plastics Corporation (Nan Ya).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On July 8, 2010, the Department published a notice 
determining that FENC was the successor-in-interest to Far Eastern 
Textiles Limited. See Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Final 
Results of Changed-Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 75 FR 39208 (July 8, 2010).
    \2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 
37781 (June 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 30, 2012, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department extended the 
due date for the preliminary results by 85 days from the original due 
date of January 31, 2012, to April 25, 2012.\3\ Further, on April 11, 
2012, the Department extended the due date for the preliminary results 
by an additional 35 days to May 30, 2012.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\  See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Extension 
of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 77 FR 4543 (January 30, 2012).
    \4\ See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Extension of 
Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 77 FR 21733 (April 11, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 PSF 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 the 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 the 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.

Rescission of Review in Part

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d), the Department will rescind 
an administrative review in part ``if a party that requested a review 
withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of the publication of 
notice of initiation of the requested review.'' Subsequent to the 
initiation of these reviews, we received a timely withdrawal of the 
request we had received for the review of Nan Ya. Because the 
Department received no other requests for review of Nan Ya, we are 
rescinding the review with respect to Nan Ya in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(1).

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 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 from the 
factory precedes invoice date, shipment date better reflects the date 
on which the material terms of sale are established.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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 FENC's sales to the United States, shipment date 
usually occurs on or before the date of invoice. The date of shipment 
is the date on which goods are shipped from the factory. 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 prior to the 
issuance of the invoice. Therefore, we used the date of shipment as the 
date of sale where shipment date preceded the date of invoice in 
accordance with our practice. Where the date of invoice preceded the 
shipment date we used the date of invoice for the date of sale.
    For the majority of FENC's home market sales, the goods are shipped 
from the factory on the same day that the Government Uniform Invoice is 
issued. For the remaining sales, the invoice date occurs a few days 
after the date of shipment from the factory. Based on record evidence, 
all material terms of sale are established at the time of shipment. 
There is no evidence on the record that there were order changes in the 
few days between the date of shipment and the issuance of the 
Government Uniform Invoice. Based upon these facts and in accordance 
with

[[Page 32504]]

our practice, we preliminarily determine that shipment date is the 
appropriate date of sale for all home market sales.

Fair Value Comparison

    To determine whether FENC's sales of the subject merchandise from 
Taiwan to the United States were at prices below normal value, we 
compared the export price to the normal value as described in the 
``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. Pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.414(c)(1) and (d), we compared the monthly weighted-
average export price of U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted-
average normal value of the comparable foreign like product where there 
were sales made in the ordinary course of trade.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In these preliminary results, the Department applied the 
weighted-average dumping margin calculation method adopted in 
Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping 
Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; 
Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012). In particular, 
the Department compared monthly weighted-average export prices with 
monthly weighted-average normal values and granted offsets for non-
dumped comparisons in the calculation of the weighted-average 
dumping margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products covered by the ``Scope of the Order'' section above produced 
and sold by FENC in the comparison market during the POR to be foreign 
like product for the purposes of determining appropriate product 
comparisons to U.S. sales of subject merchandise. We made comparisons 
to weighted-average comparison market prices that were based on all 
sales which passed the cost-of-production test and on those sales which 
did not pass the cost-of-production test but were made at prices which 
were considered to have provided for the recovery of costs within a 
reasonable period of time. Specifically, in making our comparisons, if 
an identical home market model was reported, we made comparisons to 
monthly weighted-average home market prices that were based on all 
relevant sales during the contemporary month or, lacking such sales, to 
a previous or subsequent month in the shorter cost period (See ``Cost 
Averaging Methodology'' below). If there were no sales of an identical 
model available for comparison during the relevant months we 
substituted the most similar above cost home market model. If there 
were no home market models with a difference in merchandise of less 
than twenty percent available we used constructed value for comparison 
purposes. We calculated the weighted-average comparison market prices 
on a level of trade-specific basis.

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 or 
cost-insurance-and-freight 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 construction fee, 
trade promotion fees, containerization expenses, international freight, 
and marine insurance. No other adjustments were claimed or applied.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability as 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.

B. Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act and the 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act (see H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 829-831 
(1994)), 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 implementing these principles in this review, we obtained 
information from FENC regarding the marketing stages involved in making 
its reported home market and U.S. sales for each channel of 
distribution. FENC 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 FENC 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 
preliminarily determined that all of FENC's U.S. sales constitute a 
single level of trade.
    FENC 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 FENC performed for selling to 
home market customers did not vary by individual customers, we 
preliminarily determine that all of FENC's home market sales constitute 
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 FENC 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

[[Page 32505]]

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 was necessary.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    In the last administrative review of the order completed prior to 
the initiation of this review, the Department determined that FENC sold 
the foreign like product at prices below the cost of producing the 
merchandise and, as a result, we excluded such sales from the 
calculation of normal value.\7\ Therefore, pursuant to section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that FENC's sales of the foreign like product under 
consideration for the determination of normal value in the instant 
review may have been made at prices below cost of production (COP) as 
provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act and, therefore, outside 
of the ordinary course of trade. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the 
Act, we have conducted a COP investigation of FENC's sales in the 
comparison market (sales below cost test).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 43921 (July 
27, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Cost Averaging Methodology
    The Department's normal practice is to calculate an annual 
weighted-average cost for the POR.\8\ However, we recognize that 
possible distortions may result if we use our normal annual-average 
cost method during a time of significant cost changes. In determining 
whether to deviate from our normal methodology of calculating an annual 
weighted-average cost, we evaluate the case-specific record evidence 
using two primary factors: (1) The change in the cost of manufacturing 
(COM) recognized by the respondent during the POR must be deemed 
significant; (2) the record evidence must indicate that sales during 
the shorter cost-averaging periods could be reasonably linked with the 
COP or constructed value during the same shorter cost-averaging 
periods.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 77852 (December 13, 2000), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 18, and 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 71 FR 3822 
(January 24, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 5 (explaining the Department's practice of computing a 
single weighted-average cost for the entire period).
    \9\ See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 6627 
(February 10, 2010) (SSSS from Mexico), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 6 and Stainless Steel Plate in Coils 
From Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 73 FR 75398 (December 11, 2008) (SSPC from Belgium), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Significance of Cost Changes
    In prior cases, we established 25 percent as the threshold (between 
the high- and low- quarter COM) for determining that the changes in COM 
are significant enough to warrant a departure from our standard annual-
average cost approach.\10\ In the instant case, record evidence shows 
that FENC experienced significant changes (i.e., changes that exceeded 
25 percent) between the high and low quarterly COM during the POR.\11\ 
This change in COM is attributable primarily to the price volatility 
for purified terephthalic acid (PTA) and monoethylene glycol (MEG) used 
in the manufacture of PSF. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See SSPC from Belgium and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 4.
    \11\ See Memorandum from Stephanie Arthur to Neal M. Halper, 
Director of Office of Accounting, entitled ``Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary 
Results--Far Eastern New Century Corporation'' (FENC Cost 
Calculation Memo), dated concurrently with this notice at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Linkage Between Cost and Sales Information
    Consistent with past precedent, because we found the changes in 
costs to be significant, we evaluated whether there is evidence of a 
linkage between the cost changes and the sales prices during the 
POR.\12\ Absent a surcharge or other pricing mechanism, the Department 
may alternatively look for evidence of a pattern that changes in 
selling prices reasonably correlate to changes in unit costs.\13\ To 
determine whether a reasonable correlation existed between the sales 
prices and underlying costs during the POR, we compared weighted-
average quarterly prices to the corresponding quarterly COM for the 
control numbers with the highest volume of sales in the comparison 
market and in the United States. Our comparison revealed that sales and 
costs for all of the selected control numbers for FENC showed 
reasonable correlation. See FENC Cost Calculation Memo at 2-3. After 
reviewing this information and determining that changes in selling 
prices correlate reasonably to changes in unit costs, we preliminarily 
determine that there is linkage between FENC's changing sales prices 
and costs during the POR.\14\ We have preliminarily determined that a 
shorter cost period approach, based on a quarterly-average COP, is 
appropriate for FENC because we have found significant cost changes in 
COM as well as reasonable linkage between costs and sales prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See SSSS from Mexico and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 6 and SSPC from Belgium and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
    \13\ See SSPC from Belgium and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 4.
    \14\ Id; see also SSSS from Mexico and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 6 and SSPC from Belgium and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Calculation of Cost of Production
    Before making comparisons to normal value, we conducted a COP 
analysis of FENC's sales pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act to 
determine whether home market sales were made at prices below COP and 
that these costs were not recoverable within a reasonable period of 
time. For this analysis, the COP is based on a shorter cost-period COP 
average rather than a period-average COP. See the ``Cost Averaging 
Methodology'' section, above, for further discussion. We calculated 
FENC's quarterly COP on a product-specific basis, based on the sum of 
the FENC's cost 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 packing the 
merchandise. We relied on the COP information FENC submitted in its 
response to our cost questionnaire, including FENC's reported quarterly 
adjustment to its cost of manufacturing information which accounts for 
purchases of PTA and MEG from affiliated parties at non-arm's length 
prices, in accordance with the major input rule of section 773(f) of 
the Act. See Exhibit 2SE-3-4 of FENC's March 9, 2012 response. For 
control numbers for which there was no production during the POR or 
during a POR quarter we chose or calculated surrogates 
respectively.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Memorandum from Michael Romani to the File, entitled '' 
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Far Eastern New Century 
Corporation Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order '' dated 
concurrently with this notice at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
    As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the 
quarterly weighted average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison 
market sales of the foreign like product to determine whether these 
sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period 
of time in substantial quantities. We determined the net

[[Page 32506]]

comparison market prices for the below cost test by subtracting from 
the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, discounts, 
rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses.
4. Cost Recovery Analysis
    In accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, for 
sales found to be made below cost, we examined whether, within an 
extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial 
quantities, and whether such sales were made at prices which permitted 
the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the 
normal course of trade. As stated in section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 
prices are considered to provide for recovery of costs if such prices 
are above the weighted average per-unit COP for the period of 
investigation or review.
    In light of the Court's directives in SeAH Steel Corp. v. United 
States, 704 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2010), and SeAH Steel 
Corporation v. United States, 764 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (Ct. Int'l. Trade 
2011) to use an unadjusted annual average cost for purposes of the cost 
recovery test, in the instant review we have used the approach which we 
adopted recently to test for cost recovery when using an shorter cost 
period methodology.\16\ Using the methodology adopted in SPT from 
Turkey, we calculated a control number specific weighted-average annual 
price using only those sales that were made below their quarterly COP, 
and compared the resulting weighted-average price to the annual 
weighted-average cost per control number. If the annual weighted-
average price per control number was above the annual weighted-average 
cost per control number then we considered those sales to have provided 
for the recovery of costs and restored all such sales to the normal 
value pool of comparison-market sales available for comparison with 
U.S. sales. For further details regarding the cost recovery methodology 
and the application of our shorter-cost period methodology, see the 
FENC Cost Calculation Memo at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From Turkey; 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
76 FR 76939 (December 9, 2011) (SPT From Turkey).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Results of the Sales Below Cost Test
    We found that for certain products, more than 20 percent of the 
respondent's home market sales were made at prices below COP and, in 
addition, these below cost sales were made within an extended period of 
time and in substantial quantities. In addition, pursuant to the cost 
recovery analysis described above, we found that these sales were at 
prices which did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable 
period of time. We therefore disregarded these sales from the 
calculation of normal value, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of 
the Act.

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We calculated normal value based on the price FENC 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) to normal value.

F. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where normal value 
cannot be based on comparison market sales, normal value may be based 
on constructed value (CV). Accordingly, for certain sales made by FENC, 
we based normal value on CV because there were no home market sales in 
the ordinary course of trade that could be properly compared to those 
U.S. sales.
    Section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on 
the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported 
merchandise, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative 
expense (including financing expenses), profit, and U.S. packing costs. 
We calculated respondent's quarterly materials, general and 
administrative, and financing costs as described in the ``Cost of 
Production Analysis'' section above.
    For comparisons to export price, we made adjustments to CV for 
circumstances of sale differences, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made circumstances of sale 
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on comparison 
market sales and adding U.S. direct selling expenses.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a 
weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent exists for FENC for the 
period May 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011.

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. FENC reported the name of the 
importer of record and the entered value for all of its sales to the 
United States during the POR. If FENC's weighted-average dumping margin 
is above de minimis in the final results of this review, we will 
calculate an importer-specific assessment rate on the basis of the 
ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the 
importer's examined sales and the total entered value of those sales in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR produced by FENC for which it did not know 
its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, 
we will instruct CBP to

[[Page 32507]]

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).
    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of 
the final results of this review.

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 FENC 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.

    Dated: May 24, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-13372 Filed 5-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P