[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27281-27286]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13510]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-839]
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea:
Preliminary Results of the 2007/2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber
from the Republic of Korea. The period of review is May 1, 2007,
through April 30, 2008. This review covers imports of certain polyester
staple fiber from one producer/exporter. We preliminarily find 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. Interested parties are invited to comment on these
[[Page 27282]]
preliminary results. We will issue the final results not later than 120
days from the date of publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 9, 2009
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shelly Atkinson or Brandon Farlander,
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) 482-0116
and (202) 482-0182, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 25, 2000, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
published an antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber
(``PSF'') from the Republic of Korea (``Korea''). See Notice of Amended
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester
Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Antidumping Duty Orders:
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan,
65 FR 33807 (May 25, 2000). On May 5, 2008, the Department published a
notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' of this
order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review,
73 FR 24532 (May 5, 2008). On May 29, 2008, Huvis Corporation
(``Huvis'') requested an administrative review. On May 30, 2008,
Wellman, Inc.; DAK Americas LLC; and Invista, S.a.r.L. (collectively,
``the petitioners'') requested an administrative review of Huvis. On
July 1, 2008, the Department published a notice initiating the review
with respect to Huvis.\1\ See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation
in Part, 73 FR 37409 (July 1, 2008). The period of review (``POR'') is
May 1, 2007, through April 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioners also asked for the Department to request CBP
import data, for either direct shipments or shipments through Canada
or Mexico, under the name ``Samyang.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 17, 2008, we issued the antidumping questionnaire in this
review. We received responses from Huvis in August and September 2008.
In November 2008, February, March, and April 2009, we issued
supplemental questionnaires to Huvis. We received responses to these
supplemental questionnaires in January, March, April and May 2009.
On February 4, 2009, the Department published in the Federal
Register an extension of the time limit for the completion of the
preliminary results of this review until no later than June 1, 2009, in
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). See Certain Polyester
Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea: Extension of Time Limit for
the Preliminary Results of the 2007-2008 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 6014 (February 4, 2009).
Scope of the Order
For the purposes of the order, the product covered 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 5503.20.00.25 is specifically excluded
from the order. Also, specifically excluded from the order are
polyester staple fibers of 10 to 18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6
to 8 inches (fibers used in the manufacture of carpeting). In addition,
low-melt PSF is excluded from 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 under the order is
dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, during April 2008, we
verified the sales information provided by Huvis in Korea using
standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant
sales and financial records, and selection of original documentation
containing relevant information. The Department reported its findings
on June 1, 2009. See Memorandum to the File, ``Verification of the
Sales Response of Huvis Corporation in the Antidumping Review of
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea'' dated June
1, 2009. This report is on file in the Central Records Unit in room
1117 of the main Department building. We plan to verify Huvis'
submitted cost information in July 2009.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Huvis' sales of PSF to the United States were
made at less than normal value (``NV''), we compared export price
(``EP'') to NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal
Value'' sections of this notice below.
Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EP of
individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign-
like product, where there were sales made in the ordinary course of
trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section
below.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
products produced and sold by the respondent in the home market covered
by the description in the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above, to be
foreign-like products for purposes of determining appropriate product
comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the
Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV,
we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the
foreign-like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise. For further details, see the ``Normal Value'' section,
below.
We compared U.S. sales to monthly weighted-average prices of
contemporaneous sales made in the home market. Where there were no
contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise in the home market, we
compared sales made within the window period, which extends from three
months prior to the POR until two months after the POR. See 19 CFR
351.414(e)(2). As directed by section 771(16) of the Act, where there
were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the
ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S.
sales to sales of the most similar foreign-like product made in the
ordinary course of trade. Further, as provided in section 773(a)(4) of
the Act, where we could not determine NV because there were no sales of
identical or similar merchandise made in the ordinary course of trade
in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to
constructed value (``CV'').
[[Page 27283]]
Date of Sale
For its home market sales, Huvis reported invoice date as its date
of sale because Huvis permits home market customers to make order
changes up to that time. Thus, Huvis' invoices to its home market
customers establish the material terms of sale.
For its U.S. sales, Huvis reported date of shipment as its date of
sale because it permits U.S. customers to make order changes up to the
date of shipment and because the merchandise is always shipped on or
before the date of invoice. Thus, the material terms of sale are
established on the date of shipment. See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber
from Korea: Preliminary Results of the 2006/2007 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 31058, 31060 (May 30, 2008) (``Preliminary
Results of 2006/07 Administrative Review''); unchanged in Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea: Final Results of the 2006-2007
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 74144 (December 5, 2008)
(``Final Results of 2006/07 Administrative Review''); see also Certain
Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From
Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR
13170, 13172-73 (March 18, 1998).
Export Price
For sales to the United States, we calculated EP in accordance with
section 772(a) of the Act because the merchandise was sold prior to
importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because
constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. Huvis
reported sales to the United States based upon four different types of
sales terms: free-on board (``FOB''); cost, insurance, and freight
(``CIF''); cost and freight (``C&F''); and ex-dock duty paid (``EDDP'')
FOB. We calculated EP based on these reported prices 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: loading fees, inland freight from the plant to port
of exportation, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight,
marine insurance, and U.S. customs duty (including U.S. brokerage and
handling).
We increased EP, where appropriate, for duty drawback in accordance
with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Huvis provided documentation
demonstrating that it received duty drawback under Korea's individual-
rate system. In prior investigations and administrative reviews, the
Department has examined Korea's individual-rate system and found that
the government controls in place generally satisfy the Department's
requirements for receiving a duty drawback adjustment (i.e., that (1)
the rebates received were directly linked to import duties paid on
inputs used in the manufacture of the subject merchandise, and (2)
there were sufficient imports to account for the rebates received).
See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of the Eleventh Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Corrosion-Resistant
Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 7513
(February 13, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 2. We examined the documentation submitted by Huvis in this
administrative review and confirmed that it meets the Department's two-
prong test (mentioned above) for receiving a duty drawback adjustment.
Accordingly, we are allowing the reported duty drawback adjustment on
Huvis' U.S. sales.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of PSF
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we
compared the respondent's home market sales of the foreign-like product
to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance
with section 773(a) of the Act. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and
(C) 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.
B. Level of Trade
Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the
same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP. Sales are made at different
LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.;
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62
FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997) (``CTL Plate''). In order to
determine whether the comparison market sales were at different stages
in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the
distribution system in each market (i.e., the ``chain of
distribution''),\2\ including selling functions,\3\ class of customer
(``customer category''), and the level of selling expenses for each
type of sale. Id.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying
levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on
either home market or third country prices),\4\ we consider the
starting prices before any adjustments. See Micron Tech, Inc. v. United
States, et al., 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (interpreting
Congressional intent to be in accordance with this methodology).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The marketing process in the United States and comparison
markets begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the
final user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two
may have many or few links, and the respondent's sales occur
somewhere along this chain. CTL Plate, 62 FR at 61732. In performing
this evaluation, we considered the narrative responses of the
respondent to properly determine where in the chain of distribution
the sale occurs.
\3\ Selling functions associated with a particular chain of
distribution help us to evaluate LOTs in a particular market. CTL
Plate, 62 FR at 61732. 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.
\4\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling, general and
administrative (``SG&A'') expenses, and profit for CV, where
possible. See, e.g., Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Partial Rescission of Review, 70 FR 32756, 32757 (June 6, 2005),
unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the
Republic of Korea, 70 FR 73435 (December 12, 2005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the
foreign-like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the
EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sales to sales at a different
LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales at a different LOT
in the comparison market, where available data show that the difference
in LOT affects price comparability, we make an LOT adjustment under
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
Huvis reported a single channel of distribution and a single LOT in
each market, and has not requested an LOT adjustment. In the single
channel of distribution for U.S. sales, merchandise is shipped directly
to the customer on an FOB, CIF, C&F, or EDDP-FOB basis. For home market
sales, merchandise is delivered to the customer's location or sold on
an ex-works basis.
[[Page 27284]]
We examined the information reported by Huvis regarding its
marketing process for making the reported home market and U.S. sales,
including the type and level of selling activities performed, and
customer categories. Specifically, we considered the extent to which
the sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory maintenance,
and warranty services varied with respect to the different customer
categories (i.e., distributors and end users) within each market and
across the markets.
Huvis reported that it made direct sales to distributors and end
users in both the home market and to the United States. Also, for sales
to the United States, Huvis reported sales to trading companies. For
sales in the home market and to the United States, Huvis' selling
activities included negotiating sales terms, receiving and processing
orders, arranging for freight and delivery, and preparing shipping
documents. For each market, Huvis was available to provide technical
advice upon a customer's request. For sales in the home market and to
the United States, Huvis offered no inventory maintenance services nor
advertising, and it did not handle any warranty claims during the POR.
Because the selling functions were similar in both markets, we
preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in the home market and in
the United States, and that Huvis' home market and U.S. sales were made
at the same LOT.
C. Sales to Affiliated Customers
Huvis made sales in the home market to affiliated customers. To
test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the
starting prices of sales to affiliated customers to those of sales to
unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct and
indirect selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Where the price to
affiliated parties was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent
of the price of the same or comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated
parties, we determined that the sales made to affiliated parties were
at arm's length. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in
the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). In
accordance with the Department's practice, we included in our margin
analysis only sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm's
length.
D. Cost of Production Analysis
In the most recently completed administrative review, we had
disregarded some sales by Huvis because they were made at prices below
the cost of production (``COP''). Under section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Act, previously disregarded below-cost sales provide reasonable grounds
to believe or suspect that the respondent made sales of the subject
merchandise in its comparison market at prices below the COP within the
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. Whenever the Department has this
reason to believe or suspect sales were made below the COP, we are
directed by section 773(b) of the Act to determine whether, in fact,
there were below-cost sales.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we disregard sales from
our calculation of NV that were made at less than the COP if they were
made in substantial quantities over an extended period of time at
prices that would not permit recovery of costs within a reasonable
period. We find that the below-cost sales represent ``substantial
quantities,'' when 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a
given product are at prices less than the COP, in accordance with
section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department normally considers sales to
have been made within an extended period of time when made during a
period of one year. Finally, prices do not permit recovery of costs
within a reasonable period of time if the per unit COP at the time of
sale is below the weighted average per unit COP for the POR, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
Under section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent
of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the
COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because
such below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities.
Application of Facts Otherwise Available
Section 776(a)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will
apply ``facts otherwise available'' if the ``necessary information is
not available on the record.'' As discussed in the ``Calculation of
COP'' section below, Huvis could not provide market prices for purified
terephthalic acid (``PTA'') and qualified terephthalic acid (``QTA'')
as requested by the Department. Therefore, under section 776(a) of the
Act, use of facts otherwise available is warranted in determining the
market price for PTA and QTA.
1. Calculation of COP
We calculated the COP on a product-specific basis, based on the sum
of the respondent's costs of materials and fabrication for the
merchandise under review, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, financial
expenses, and the costs of all expenses incidental to placing the
foreign-like product packed and in a condition ready for shipment, in
accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.
We relied on COP information submitted in Huvis' cost questionnaire
responses except for the following adjustments. See Memorandum to the
File, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results Huvis Corporation,'' dated June
1, 2009.
(1) In performing our analysis under sections 773(f)(2) and (3) of
the Act, we adjusted Huvis' reported cost of manufacturing (``COM'') to
account for purchases of PTA, modified terephthalic acid (``MTA''), and
QTA from affiliated parties at non-arm's-length prices. Under section
773(f)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.407(b), the Department will
determine the value of a major input from an affiliated person based on
the higher of the transfer price, the market price, or the affiliate's
COP.
In the instant review, Huvis could not provide a market price for
QTA, as requested in the Department's original and supplemental
questionnaires. Therefore, in accordance with sections 773(f)(3) and
776(a) of the Act, we have relied on facts available to make a
determination of market value. Consistent with the previous
administrative review, we find no evidence on the record to overturn
our prior finding that MTA and QTA are interchangeable and can be
successfully used in place of one another using similar quantities. See
Final Results of 2006/07 Administrative Review at Comment 10. Because
QTA and MTA are interchangeable, we used the market price for MTA as a
proxy for the market price of QTA for the major input analysis.
Accordingly, we increased Huvis's reported transfer price of QTA by the
percent difference between the reported transfer price of QTA and the
higher of the surrogate market price or the affiliate's adjusted COP.
For MTA, we determined the value of this major input based on the
higher of the transfer price, the market price, or the affiliate's COP.
We adjusted Huvis' reported transfer price of MTA by the percent
difference between the reported transfer price and the higher of market
price or affiliate's COP.
For PTA, we find that it is not a major input because Huvis'
purchases of PTA do not represent a significant percentage
[[Page 27285]]
of the total COM of merchandise under review. Under section 773(f)(2)
of the Act, the Department may disregard transactions if the transfer
price of an input does not fairly reflect the amount usually reflected
for sales of that input. Huvis could not provide a market price for
this input, as requested in the Department's original and supplemental
questionnaires. Therefore, in accordance with sections 773(f)(2) and
776(a) of the Act, we have relied on facts available to make a
determination of market value. We constructed a price for the missing
market price of this input. This methodology is consistent with our
calculation for the proxy market price of PTA in the previous
administrative review. See Final Results of 2006/07 Administrative
Review at Comment 10. Because the market price of PTA exceeded the
transfer price, we adjusted Huvis' reported transfer price of PTA by
the percent difference between the reported transfer price and the
market price.
(2) We adjusted Huvis' reported financial expenses offset by
interest on deposits for retirement insurance. Consistent with our
treatment of this income in the prior administrative reviews, we
excluded this offset because it is not related to interest income
incurred on short-term investments of working capital. See Preliminary
Results of 2006/07 Administrative Review, 73 FR at 31062; unchanged in
Final Results of 2006/07 Administrative Review.
2. Test of Home Market Prices
On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP figures for the POR to the home market sales of the
foreign-like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to
determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP.
According to our practice, the prices were exclusive of any applicable
movement charges and indirect selling expenses. In determining whether
to disregard home market sales made at prices less than their COP, we
examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act,
whether such sales were made (1) within an extended period of time in
substantial quantities, and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery
of all costs within a reasonable period of time.
3. Results of COP Test
We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of the
respondent's home market sales were at prices less than the POR average
COP and, thus, the below-cost sales were made within an extended period
of time in substantial quantities. In addition, these sales were made
at prices that did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable
period of time. Therefore, we excluded these below-cost sales and used
the remaining above-cost sales of the same product, as the basis for
determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices
We calculated NV based on the price to affiliated and unaffiliated
customers. We made adjustments for differences in packing in accordance
with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. We also made
adjustments, where appropriate, consistent with section
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, for loading fees and for inland freight
from the plant to the customer. In addition, we made adjustments for
differences in circumstances of sale (``COS''), in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS
adjustments, where appropriate, by deducting direct selling expenses
incurred on home market sales (i.e., credit expenses and bank charges)
and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., credit expenses and bank
charges). See 19 CFR 351.410(c).
Preliminary Results of the Review
We find that the following dumping margin exists for the period May
1, 2007, through April 30, 2008:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Exporter/manufacturer margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huvis Corporation................................... 1.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we have a cost verification scheduled for July 2009, case
briefs for this administrative review must be submitted no later than
one week after the issuance of the cost verification report. Rebuttal
briefs must be filed within five days after the deadline for submission
of case briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1), and must be limited
to issues raised in the case briefs. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any
interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of
this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the
rebuttal briefs are filed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited
to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Parties who submit
case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding 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.
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any
such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results. See section 751(a)(3) of the Act.
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries.
Huvis submitted evidence demonstrating that it was the importer of
record for certain of its POR sales. We examined the customs entry
documentation submitted by Huvis and tied it to the U.S. sales listing.
We noted that Huvis was indeed the importer of record for certain
sales. Therefore, for purposes of calculating the importer-specific
assessment rates, we have treated Huvis as the importer of record for
certain POR shipments. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales
where Huvis is the importer of record, Huvis submitted the reported
entered value of the U.S. sales and we have calculated importer-
specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total
entered value of those sales.
Regarding sales where Huvis was not the importer of record, we note
that Huvis did not report the entered value for the U.S. sales in
question. Accordingly, we have calculated importer-specific per-unit
duty assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating
the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and
dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine
whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis, in accordance with
the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated
importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered
value.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after publication of the final results of review.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the
POR
[[Page 27286]]
produced by companies included in these preliminary results for which
the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for
the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate
unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the
intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. Id.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of PSF from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of
this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the
Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the
rate established in the final results of this administrative review
(except no cash deposit will be required if its weighted-average margin
is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.50 percent); (2) for merchandise
exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but
covered in the original less-than-fair-value investigation or a
previous review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the most
recent rate published in the final determination or final results for
which the manufacturer or exporter received an individual rate; (3) if
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, the previous 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; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous
reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 7.91 percent, the all-others
rate established in Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of
Korea: Notice of Amended Final Determination and Amended Order Pursuant
to Final Court Decision, 68 FR 74552 (December 24, 2003).
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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: June 1, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-13510 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S