[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 130 (Friday, July 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39990-39996]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16586]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-905]


Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting the 
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, 2010, through May 31, 2011. 
As discussed below, the Department preliminarily

[[Page 39991]]

determines that Zhaoqing Tifo New Fibre Co., Ltd. (``Zhaoqing Tifo'') 
did not sell subject merchandise in the United States at prices below 
the normal value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted in 
our final results of review, the Department 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.

DATES: Effective Date: July 6, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Hampton or Susan Pulongbarit, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0116 or (202) 
482-4031, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 1, 2007, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber from the 
PRC.\1\ On July 28, 2011, the Department published a notice of 
initiation of an administrative review of certain polyester staple 
fiber from the PRC covering the period June 1, 2010, through May 31, 
2011, for nine companies.\2\ On August 26, 2011, the Department 
published a correction notice to include one company that was 
inadvertently omitted from the Initiation Notice.\3\ On February 9, 
2012, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice 
extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results by 30 
days.\4\ On April 2, 2012, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a second notice fully extending the time period for issuing 
the preliminary results by 90 days.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Polyester 
Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30545 (June 
1, 2007) (``Order'').
    \2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, Requests for Revocations in Part and 
Deferral of Administrative Review, 76 FR 45227 (July 28, 2011) 
(``Initiation Notice''). Those companies are: Far Eastern 
Industries, Ltd., (Shanghai) and Far Eastern Polychem Industries; 
Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Co., Ltd.; Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co., 
Ltd.; Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd., and its affiliate, 
Cixi Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Sanxin Paper Co., 
Ltd.; Nantong Luolai Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Nan Yang Textiles 
Co., Ltd.; Zhaoqing Tifo New Fiber Co., Ltd.; and Huvis Sichuan 
Chemical Fiber Corp., and Huvis Sichuan Polyester Fiber Ltd.
    \3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 
53404 (August 26, 2011).
    \4\ See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's 
Republic of China: Extension of Preliminary Results of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 6783 (February 9, 
2012).
    \5\ See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's 
Republic of China: Extension of Preliminary Results of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 19619 (April 2, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respondent Selection

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act'') directs the Department to calculate an individual weighted-
average dumping margin 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 and producers if it is not practicable to examine all 
exporters and producers involved in the review.
    On August 17, 2011, 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.\6\ On August 
24, 2011, the Department received comments from Zhaoqing Tifo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the Department's Letter to All Interested Parties 
regarding 2010-2011 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 
Order of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the PRC: CBP Data for 
Respondent Selection, dated August 17, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 30, 2011, 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 
Zhaoqing Tifo and Far Eastern Industries (Shanghai) Ltd., and Far 
Eastern Polychem Industries (``Far Eastern'') as mandatory 
respondents.\7\ On October 4, 2011, the Department sent antidumping 
duty questionnaires to Zhaoqing Tifo and Far Eastern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, from Steven Hampton, International Trade Compliance 
Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration regarding 4th Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from 
the PRC: Response to Petitioner's Comments on CBP Data, dated 
September 30, 2011 (``Respondent Selection Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 26, 2011 the Department sent a letter to Far Eastern to 
inquire why it did not submit a response to the Department's October 4, 
2011, questionnaire. On October 27, 2011, the Department received a 
letter from Far Eastern where it indicated that it would no longer 
participate in this review.

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data

    On November 9, 2011, the Department sent interested parties a 
letter inviting comments on surrogate country selection and surrogate 
value (``SV'') data.\8\ On December 9, 2011, Zhaoqing Tifo submitted 
comments on surrogate country selection. On January 9, 2012, the 
Department received information to value factors of production 
(``FOP'') from Zhaoqing Tifo. On January 19, 2012, the Department 
received a rebuttal response to Zhaoqing Tifo's SV submission from 
Petitioner. The SVs placed on the record from Zhaoqing Tifo were 
obtained from sources in Thailand, whereas the SVs placed on the record 
by Petitioner were from sources in Indonesia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See the Department's Letter to All Interested Parties 
regarding Antidumping Duty Order on Polyester Staple Fiber from the 
People's Republic of China, dated November 9, 2011 (``Surrogate 
Country Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this proceeding is synthetic staple 
fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of 
polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in 
diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one inch (25 
mm) to five inches (127 mm). The subject merchandise may be coated, 
usually with a silicon or other finish, or not coated. Polyester Staple 
Fiber is generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski 
jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and furniture.
    The following products are excluded from the scope: (1) Polyester 
Staple Fiber 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 
polyester staple fiber for spinning and generally used in woven and 
knit applications to produce textile and apparel products; (2) 
Polyester Staple Fiber 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 polyester staple fiber 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 polyester staple fiber 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

[[Page 39992]]

written description of the merchandise under the orders is dispositive.

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.\9\ Accordingly, the Department has calculated 
the NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to 
NME countries. With the exception of the two mandatory respondents, the 
Department did not receive a separate rate application or certification 
from any other party in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free 
Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760 
(June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic 
of China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country

    When the Department conducts an antidumping administrative review 
of imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it 
to base NV, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's FOPs, which 
are valued in the surrogate market economy (``ME'') country or 
countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance 
with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department 
shall utilize, to the extent possible, the SVs of FOPs in one or more 
ME countries that are: (1) At a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of 
comparable merchandise. Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), the 
Department will normally value FOPs in a single country. The sources of 
the SVs are discussed under the ``Normal Value'' section below and in 
the Surrogate Value Memorandum.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Memorandum to the File through Scot T. Fullerton, 
Program Manager, Office 9 from Steven Hampton, International Trade 
Analyst, Office 9: 2010-2011 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of 
China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results, dated 
concurrently with this notice (``Surrogate Value Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 9, 2011, the Department sent interested parties a 
letter requesting comments on surrogate country selection and 
information pertaining to valuing FOPs. On January 9, 2012, the 
Department received surrogate country and value comments from Zhaoqing 
Tifo suggesting that the Department select Thailand as the surrogate 
country. On January 19, 2012, the Department received surrogate country 
and value comments from Petitioner suggesting that the Department 
select Indonesia as the surrogate country. On April 6, 2012, Zhaoqing 
Tifo submitted additional comments for the preliminary determination 
arguing that the Department should rely upon Thailand for SVs. On April 
18, 2012, Petitioner submitted additional comments arguing that the 
Department should rely upon Indonesia for SVs.
    Pursuant to its practice, the Department received a list of 
potential surrogate countries from Import Administration's Office of 
Policy in which it determined that Colombia, Indonesia, Philippines, 
South Africa, Thailand and Ukraine were at a comparable level of 
economic development to the PRC.\11\ The Department notes that the 
Surrogate Country List is a non-exhaustive list of economically 
comparable countries. The Department also notes that the record does 
not contain publicly available SV factor information for Colombia, 
Philippines, South Africa, and Ukraine. Because parties submitted no 
information on the record with respect to whether the potential 
surrogate countries are significant producers of comparable 
merchandise, the Department used data from the Global Trade Atlas 
(``GTA'') published by Global Trade Information Services, Inc. to 
confirm that Indonesia and Thailand are both significant producers of 
comparable merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Surrogate Country Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's practice when selecting the best available 
information for valuing FOPs, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of 
the Act, is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are 
product-specific, representative of a broad-market average, publicly 
available, contemporaneous with the POR and exclusive of taxes and 
duties.\12\ As a general matter, the Department prefers to use publicly 
available data representing a broad-market average to value SVs.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 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.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department notes that Zhaoqing Tifo's surrogate country and 
value comments includes Thai SVs for all inputs and one financial 
statement from a single Thai producer of comparable merchandise. In 
addition, Petitioner's SV submission includes Indonesian SVs for all 
inputs except energy, labor, and movement, and three financial 
statements from Indonesian producers of comparable merchandise for the 
calculation of surrogate financial ratios.
    As stated above, with regard to Thailand, the record contains 
publicly available surrogate factor value information for all of the 
FOPs. However, the proposed SVs for certain FOPs are ``basket'' 
harmonized tariff schedule categories and are not specific to the 
material inputs consumed by Zhaoqing Tifo during production. Moreover, 
the Thai financial statement that Petitioner placed on the record from 
Indorama Ventures Ltd. (``Indorama'') does not meet the Department's 
criteria for selecting it as the best available information, in that 
Indorama does not share the same level of integration as Zhaoqing Tifo 
and contains a subsidy that was previously countervailed by the 
Department.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Letter from Zhaoqing Tifo regarding Certain Polyester 
Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values 
for the Preliminary Determination, dated January 9, 2012 at Exhibit 
SV-8, page 169. See also Final Negative Countervailing Duty 
Determination: Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin 
From Thailand, 70 FR 13462 (March 21, 2005) and accompanying Issues 
and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 3A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to Indonesia, the record contains publicly available 
surrogate factor SVs for most FOPs. With respect to the remaining FOPs 
(i.e., energy, labor, and movement) the Department has placed 
Indonesian SVs on the record of this proceeding.\15\ Of the three 
Indonesian financial statements that Petitioner submitted, two of the 
financial statements are from companies that do not produce identical 
merchandise in that they produce polyester staple fiber used in woven 
and knit applications, which is expressly excluded in the scope. 
However, the financial statement of P.T. Asia Pacific Fibers Tbk. 
demonstrates that it produces identical merchandise, shares the same 
level of integration as Zhaoqing Tifo, and does not contain any 
evidence of countervailable subsidies. Lastly, the Indonesian data on 
the record is more specific to the FOPs consumed by Zhaoqing Tifo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Memorandum to the File from Steven Hampton, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 9, Import 
Administration regarding: Placing Indonesian Surrogate Value Sources 
on the Record: Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the PRC, dated concurrently with 
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, given the facts summarized above, the Department finds 
that the information on the record supports a finding that Indonesia is 
the most appropriate primary surrogate country because Indonesia is at 
a similar level of economic development to the PRC,

[[Page 39993]]

pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, it is a significant producer 
of comparable merchandise, and reliable, publicly available data have 
been provided on the record for valuing the FOPs. In accordance with 19 
CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in an antidumping 
administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly available 
information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of publication 
of these preliminary results.

Facts Otherwise Available

    Section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``the Act''), provides that the Department shall apply ``facts 
otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary information is not on 
the record or an interested party or any other person: (A) Withholds 
information requested by the Department; (B) fails to provide requested 
information by the requested date or in the form and manner requested; 
(C) significantly impedes an antidumping proceeding; or (D) provides 
information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of 
the Act.
    As previously noted, Far Eastern did not respond to the antidumping 
duty questionnaire issued by the Department on October 4, 2011. 
Additionally, the Department confirmed delivery of the initial 
questionnaire.\16\ On October 26, 2011 the Department sent a letter to 
Far Eastern to inquire why it did not submit a response to the 
Department's October 4, 2011, questionnaire. On October 27, 2011, the 
Department received a letter from Far Eastern where it indicated that 
it would no longer participate in this review. Given that Far Eastern 
indicated that it would no longer participate in this review, the 
Department no longer had the ability to verify or obtain supplemental 
information from Far Eastern, including its separate rate 
certification.\17\ Therefore, the Department finds that Far Eastern did 
not cooperate to the best of its ability, and its non-responsiveness 
necessitates the use of facts available, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See the Department's Letter to Far Eastern regarding 
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 
dated October 26, 2011.
    \17\ See Letter from Far Eastern to the Secretary of Commerce 
regarding Polyester Staple Fiber from China, dated September 26, 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon Far Eastern's failure to submit a response to the 
Department's questionnaire, the Department finds that Far Eastern 
withheld requested information, failed to provide the information in a 
timely manner and in the form requested, and significantly impeded this 
proceeding, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act. 
Further because Far Eastern failed to demonstrate that it is eligible 
for a separate rate,\18\ the Department considers it to be part of the 
PRC-wide entity. Thus the Department finds that the PRC-wide entity, 
including Far Eastern, withheld requested information, failed to 
provide information in a timely manner and in the form requested, and 
significantly impeded this proceeding. Therefore, the Department must 
rely on the facts otherwise available in order to determine a weighted-
average dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity, pursuant to section 
776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In an NME, companies that do not submit a response to the 
questionnaire or do not adequately establish that they are 
independent of government control are subject to the single economy-
wide rate. In this case, by failing to respond to the antidumping 
duty questionnaire and impeding the Department's ability to verify 
its separate rate certification, Far Eastern did not provide 
evidence that they are independent of government control.
    \19\ See Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 71 FR 69546 (December 1, 2006) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department ``finds 
that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the 
administering authority * * * may use an inference that is adverse to 
the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available.'' \20\ Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that 
the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to 
cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' \21\ In selecting an 
adverse inference, the Department may rely on information derived from 
the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any 
previous review, or any other information placed on the record.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See also Statement of Administrative Action accompanying 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 
(1994) (``SAA'').
    \21\ Id.
    \22\  See section 776(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Far Eastern, which is part of the PRC-wide entity, failed 
to cooperate to the best of its ability in providing the requested 
information, as discussed above, the Department finds it appropriate, 
in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C), as well as 
section 776(b) of the Act, to assign total adverse facts available 
(``AFA'') to the PRC-wide entity.\23\ By doing so, the Department 
ensures that the PRC-wide entity will not obtain a more favorable 
result by failing to cooperate than had they cooperated fully in this 
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative 
Review and New Shipper Review, 72 FR 10689, 10692 (March 9, 2007) 
(decision to apply total AFA to the NME-wide entity) unchanged in 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and First New Shipper Review, 72 FR 52052 (September 12, 
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the 
Department to use, as AFA, information derived from the petition, the 
final determination in the less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') 
investigation, any previous administrative review, or any other 
information placed on the record. In selecting an AFA rate, the 
Department's practice has been to assign non-cooperative respondents 
the highest rate from either the petition, or for any party in the LTFV 
investigation or for any party in any administrative review.\24\ As 
AFA, the Department is assigning the PRC-wide entity, which includes 
Far Eastern, the highest rate from any segment of this proceeding, 
which in this case is 44.30 percent as applied to the PRC-wide entity 
in the LTFV investigation and originating from the petition.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 
33977 (June 16, 2008).
    \25\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 
72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum (``Polyester Staple Fiber Final Determination'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, where the Department 
relies on secondary information in selecting AFA, the Department 
corroborates such information to the extent practicable. To be 
considered corroborated, the Department must find the information has 
probative value, meaning that the information must be both reliable and 
relevant.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See SAA at 870; Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, 
Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, 
From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 
57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and 
Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 
and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 
(March 13, 1997).

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

[[Page 39994]]

    On the issue of reliability, the Department corroborated the AFA 
rate of 44.30 percent in the LTFV investigation.\27\ Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected rate is not appropriate as 
AFA, the Department will disregard the rate and determine an 
appropriate AFA rate. No information has been presented in the current 
review that calls into question the reliability of this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Polyester Staple Fiber Final Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the relevance, the Department will consider 
information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin 
continues to have relevance. Prior to this POR, the PRC-wide entity had 
been assigned a cash deposit and assessment rate of 44.30 percent based 
upon AFA. This cash deposit rate has remained in effect for the 
duration of this POR, and, therefore, continues to be indicative of the 
behavior of the PRC-wide entity. In addition, there is no information 
on the record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is 
unrepresentative of the PRC-wide entity's behavior during the POR. For 
all of these reasons, the Department determines that this rate 
continues to have relevance with respect to the PRC-wide entity, 
including Far Eastern.
    Therefore, the Department finds that the 44.30 percent is both 
reliable and relevant as an AFA rate for the PRC-wide entity, that it 
has probative value, and that it is corroborated to the extent 
practicable, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act. The 
Department has preliminarily assigned 44.30 percent as AFA to the PRC-
wide entity, which includes Far Eastern.

Date of Sale

    Zhaoqing Tifo reported the invoice date as the date of sale because 
it claims that, for its 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 Zhaoqing Tifo's date of sale, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i).\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See also 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 Zhaoqing Tifo were made at less than NV, the 
Department compared the export price (``EP'') to NV, as described in 
the ``U.S. Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections below. In these 
preliminary results, the Department applied the average-to-average 
comparison methodology adopted in the Final Modification for 
Reviews.\29\ In particular, the Department compared monthly, weighted-
average EPs with monthly, weighted-average NVs, and granted offsets for 
non-dumped comparisons in the calculation of the weighted-average 
dumping margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-
Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping 
Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) 
(``Final Modification for Reviews'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Zhaoqing Tifo 
because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the 
date of importation and the use of constructed export price (``CEP'') 
was not otherwise warranted. 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 
from the starting price to unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland 
freight and brokerage and handling. 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 the 
reported FOPs and SVs.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using a FOPs 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 ME country and pays for it in a ME 
currency, the Department may value the FOP using the actual price paid 
for the input. During the POR, Zhaoqing Tifo purchased certain inputs 
from ME suppliers and paid for these inputs in a ME currencies.\30\ The 
Department has confirmed that these FOPs were produced in ME countries 
through supplemental questionnaires. 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.\31\ The ME input prices reported by Zhaoqing Tifo 
exceeded the 33 percent of the total volume purchased from all sources 
during the period; therefore, the Department has utilized this 
information to value the FOPs.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Zhaoqing Tifo Section D Questionnaire Response, dated 
December 2, 2011, at 6-7 and Exhibit D-3.
    \31\ 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'').
    \32\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 2 and Attachment 
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, for subject 
merchandise produced by Zhaoqing Tifo, the Department calculated NV 
based on the FOPs reported by Zhaoqing Tifo for the POR. The Department 
used Indonesian import data and other publicly available Indonesian 
sources in order to calculate SVs for Zhaoqing Tifo's FOPs. To 
calculate NV, the Department multiplied the reported per-unit FOP 
quantities by publicly available Indonesian SVs. The Department's 
practice when selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs 
is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are product-
specific, representative of a broad market average, publicly available, 
contemporaneous with the POR, and exclusive of taxes and duties.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As appropriate, the Department adjusted input prices by including 
freight costs to render them delivered prices. Specifically, the 
Department added to Indonesian import SVs, reported on a Cost, 
Insurance and Freight ``CIF'' basis, a surrogate freight cost using the 
shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to

[[Page 39995]]

the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory 
where it 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). Zhaoqing Tifo did not 
incur brokerage and handling fees for its ME input purchases.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Zhaoqing Tifo Section C Questionnaire Response at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
Indonesian 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 2. Where necessary, the Department adjusted SVs for 
inflation and exchange rates, taxes, and the Department converted all 
applicable FOPs to a per-kilogram basis.
    The Department used Indonesian import data, on a CIF basis, from 
the GTA which is sourced from Statistics Indonesia, to determine the 
SVs for certain raw materials, by-products, packing material inputs, 
and coal. The Department has disregarded statistics from NME countries 
with generally available export subsidies, and undetermined countries, 
in calculating the average SVs. The Department continues to apply its 
long-standing practice of disregarding import data if it has a reason 
to believe or suspect the source data may be subsidized.\35\ In this 
regard, the Department has previously found that it is appropriate to 
disregard such information from India, Indonesia, South Korea and 
Thailand because the Department has determined that these countries 
maintain broadly available, non-industry specific export subsidies.\36\ 
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 India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand may have 
benefitted from these subsidies.\37\ Lastly, the Department has also 
excluded imports from Indonesia into Indonesia because there is no 
evidence on the record regarding what these data represent (e.g., re-
importations, another category of unspecified imports, or the result of 
an error in reporting). Thus, these data do not represent the best 
available information upon which to rely for valuation purposes.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 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.
    \36\ 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 
pages 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 page 4; see also 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 page 23.
    \37\ For a detailed description of all SVs used for Zhaoqing 
Tifo, see Surrogate Value Memo.
    \38\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 47771 (August 9, 2010) 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department valued water using data from the 2006 United Nations 
report titled ``Human Development Report: Disconnected Poverty: Water 
Supply & Development in Jakarta, Indonesia (Water Supply and 
Development).'' The Department based the value for water on the 2005 
value listed for large hotels, high-rise buildings, banks, and 
factories. This value was inflated to POR price levels.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo at Attachments 2 and 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department valued electricity using Indonesian price data 
specified in the World Bank's 2003 Electricity for All: Options for 
Increasing Access in Indonesia, issued in 2003 (Electricity for All). 
The electricity rates reported represent actual, country-wide, publicly 
available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to 
small, medium, and large industries in Indonesia. This value was 
inflated to POR price levels.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo at Attachments 2 and 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for 
valuing the labor input in NME antidumping proceedings.\41\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 
36092 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 attempted to 
rely on data reported by Indonesia to the ILO in Chapter 6A of the 
Yearbook. Because Indonesia does not report labor data to the ILO under 
Chapter 6A, for these preliminary results, the Department is unable to 
use ILO's Chapter 6A data to value Zhaoqing Tifo's labor wage and 
instead will use industry-specific wage rate using earnings or wage 
data reported under ILO's Chapter 5B. The Department 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. 
Accordingly, relying on Chapter 5B of the Yearbook, the Department 
calculated the labor input using labor data reported by Indonesia to 
the ILO under Sub-Classification 24 of the ISIC-Revision 3 standard, in 
accordance with Section 773(c)(4) of the Act.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo at Attachments 2 and 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department valued brokerage and handling using a price list of 
export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in 
Indonesia. 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 Indonesia that is published in Doing Business 2012: 
Indonesia, by the World Bank.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo at Attachment 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses, and profit, the Department used the audited financial 
statements of P.T. Asia Pacific Fibers Tbk.

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.

Preliminary Results of Review

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

[[Page 39996]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted
                                                               average
                   Manufacturer/exporter                       dumping
                                                                margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhaoqing Tifo New Fibre Co., Ltd...........................        *0.21
PRC-wide Entity (which includes Far Eastern Industries             44.30
 (Shanghai) Ltd., and Far Eastern Polychem Industries).....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* De minimis.

Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department will disclose the calculations used in our analysis 
to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication 
of this notice. Interested parties, who wish to request a hearing, or 
to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to 
the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, filed electronically using Import Administration's 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service 
System (IA ACCESS). An electronically filed document must be received 
successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records 
system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date 
of publication of this notice.\44\ Requests should contain the party's 
name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a 
list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, 
the Department will inform parties of the scheduled date for the 
hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and 
location to be determined.\45\ Parties should confirm by telephone the 
date, time, and location of the hearing. Interested parties are invited 
to comment on the preliminary results of this review. The Department 
will consider case briefs filed by interested parties within 30 days 
after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. 
Interested parties may file rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised 
in the case briefs. The Department will consider rebuttal briefs filed 
not later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. 
Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument 
a statement of the issue, a brief summary of the argument, and a table 
of authorities cited. The Department intends to issue the final results 
of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of 
issues raised in the written comments, within 120 days of publication 
of these preliminary results in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
    \45\ See 19 CFR 351.310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review.\46\ The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final 
results of this review. For any individually examined respondent whose 
weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 
percent) in the final results of this review, the Department will 
calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio 
of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined 
sales and the total entered value of sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1). In these preliminary results, the Department applied the 
assessment rate calculation method adopted in Final Modification for 
Reviews, i.e., on the basis of monthly average-to-average comparisons 
using only the transactions associated with that importer with offsets 
being provided for non-dumped comparisons.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
    \47\ See Antidumping Proceeding: Calculation of the Weighted-
Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping 
Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8103 (February 14, 2012) 
(``Final Modifications for Reviews'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where the Department calculates a weighted-average dumping margin 
by dividing the total amount of dumping for reviewed sales to that 
party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions, 
the Department will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment 
rates based on the resulting per-unit rates. Where an importer- (or 
customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is greater than de 
minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate 
duties at the time of liquidation.\48\ Where an importer- (or customer-
) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, the 
Department will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without 
regard to antidumping duties.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    \49\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for 
shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Zhaoqing Tifo, 
which has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that 
established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is 
zero or de minimis, then zero cash deposit will be required); (2) for 
previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not 
listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this 
proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing 
exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, 
the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 44.30 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 exporter 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 Department'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 29, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-16586 Filed 7-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P