[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22366-22369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9716]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-583-833]
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain
polyester staple fiber (PSF) from Taiwan. The period of review is May
1, 2009, through April 30, 2010. This review covers imports of certain
PSF from one producer/exporter. We have preliminarily found that sales
of the subject merchandise have been made below normal value. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties
on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment
on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results not later
than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: April 21, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael A. Romani or Richard
Rimlinger, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone
(202) 482-0198 or (202) 482-4477, respectively.
Background
On June 30, 2010, the Department published a notice initiating an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain PSF from
Taiwan covering the respondents Far Eastern Textiles Ltd. (aka & dba
Far Eastern New Century Corporation) and Nan Ya Plastics Corporation
(Nan Ya). See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 37759
(June 30, 2010). We have rescinded the review in part with respect to
Nan Ya. See Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, 75 FR 51442 (August 20,
2010).
On July 8, 2010, the Department published a notice determining that
Far Eastern New Century Corporation (FENC) was the successor-in-
interest to Far Eastern Textiles Limited. See
[[Page 22367]]
Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Final Results of Changed-
Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 39208 (July
8, 2010).
On January 31, 2011, 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 an additional 74 days from the
original due date of January 31, 2011, to April 15, 2011. See Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
5331 (January 31, 2011).
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.
Request for Verifications
The Department will verify factual information relied upon in an
administrative review if a domestic interested party submits a written
request not later than 100 days after the date of initiation of the
review and the Department conducted no verification during either of
the two immediately preceding administrative reviews. See 19 CFR
351.307(b)(1)(v)(A). Alternatively, we will conduct a verification
where ``good cause'' exists. See 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(iv).
Invista S.a.r.l., the petitioner, requested that we conduct cost
and sales verifications of FENC in comments it submitted on March 8,
2011. The request was filed 151 days after the 100-day deadline
established in 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(v)(A). Accordingly, the
petitioner's request was untimely in this case. In addition, we
preliminarily find that good cause, as described in 19 CFR
351.307(b)(1)(iv), to conduct verifications does not exist in this
review because FENC has provided adequate explanations of alleged flaws
in its responses. See Memorandum 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 (5/1/09-4/30/10)'' dated
concurrently with this notice.
Product Comparisons
We compared U.S. sales to monthly weighted-average prices of
contemporaneous sales made in the home market. We found contemporaneous
sales of identical merchandise in the home market for all U.S. sales in
accordance with section 771(16) of the Act.
Date of Sale
Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that the
Department normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the
producer's or exporter's 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. 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 sale 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 our practice, we preliminarily determine that shipment date is the
appropriate date of sale for all home-market sales.
Export Price
For sales to the United States, we calculated export price in
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because the merchandise was
sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the
United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States
and because constructed export-price methodology was not otherwise
warranted. We calculated export price based on the free-on-board price
to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we
made deductions, consistent with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, for
the following movement expenses: Inland freight from the plant to the
port of exportation, inland insurance in Taiwan, brokerage and
handling, harbor service fees, trade promotion fees, and
containerization expenses. No other adjustments were claimed or
allowed.
Normal Value
Selection of Comparison Market
To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of PSF
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating normal
value, we
[[Page 22368]]
compared the volume of the respondent's home-market sales of the
foreign like product to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act. Pursuant to
section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, because the respondent's aggregate
volume of home-market sales of the foreign like product was greater
than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable for
comparison purposes.
Cost of Production
We disregarded below-cost sales by FENC in the last administrative
review of the order completed prior to the initiation of this review.
See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 18348 (April 22, 2009);
see also Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 6136, 6137
(February 5, 2009). Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of
the Act, there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that the
respondent made sales of the foreign like product in its comparison
market at prices below the cost of production within the meaning of
section 773(b) of the Act in this review.
We calculated the cost of production on a product-specific basis,
based on the sum of the respondent'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 preparing the foreign like product for shipment
in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.
We relied on cost-of-production information FENC submitted in its
response to our cost questionnaire, including FENC's adjustment to its
cost-of-manufacturing information which accounts for purchases of
purified terephthalic acid from affiliated parties at non-arm's-length
prices in accordance with the major-input rule of section 773(f)(3) of
the Act.
On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average cost-of-production figures for the period of review to the
home-market sales of the foreign like product, as required under
section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales were made
at prices below the cost of production. The prices were exclusive of
any applicable movement charges, packing expenses, warranties, and
indirect selling expenses. In determining whether to disregard home-
market sales made at prices below their cost of production and in
accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D) of the Act, we
examined whether such sales were made within an extended period of time
in substantial quantities and at prices which permitted the recovery of
all costs within a reasonable period of time.
For home-market sales of models not produced during the period of
review, we have relied on the cost-of-production information of the
most physically similar models, consistent with our long-standing
preference where such information is available. See Stainless Steel
Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 2332 (January 13, 2011), and the
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 and Notice of
Final Results of the Tenth Administrative Review and New Shipper Review
of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea, 70 FR 12443 (March 14,
2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.
We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of the
respondent's home-market sales were at prices below the cost of
production and, in addition, the below-cost sales were made within an
extended period of time in substantial quantities. In addition, these
sales were made at prices that did not permit the recovery of costs
within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we disregarded these
sales and used the remaining sales of the same product as the basis for
determining normal value in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the
Act.
Calculation of Normal Value
We calculated normal value based on the price 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.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine normal value based on sales in the comparison
market at the same level of trade as the export price. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.412(c)(1), the normal-value level of trade is based on the
starting price of the sales in the comparison market or, when normal
value is based on constructed value, the starting price of the sales
from which we derive selling, general, and administrative expenses and
profit. For export-price sales, the U.S. level of trade is based on the
starting price of the sales in the U.S. market, which is usually from
the exporter to the importer.
To determine whether comparison-market sales are at a different
level of trade than export-price sales, we examine stages in the
marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution
between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR
351.412(c)(2). If the comparison-market sales are at a different level
of trade and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested
in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which
normal value is based and the comparison-market sales at the level of
trade of the export transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment
under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
In this review, we obtained information from 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 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
[[Page 22369]]
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 of trade. Therefore, we matched export-price sales to sales at
the same level of trade in the home market and no level-of-trade
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is necessary.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a
dumping margin of 2.92 percent exists for FENC for the period May 1,
2009, through April 30, 2010.
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 period of review. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate
for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins we
calculated for all U.S. sales to the importer and dividing this amount
by the total entered value of those sales.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the period of review 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 liquidate un-reviewed entries
at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate
company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this
clarification, see 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: April 14, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-9716 Filed 4-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P