E7-23815. Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY:

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY:

On June 6, 2007, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber from Taiwan. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received and an examination of our calculations, we have made certain changes for the final results. The final weighted-average dumping margin for Far Eastern Textile Limited is listed below in the “Final Results of the Review” section of this notice.

DATES:

Effective Dates: December 7, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Devta Ohri or Brandon Farlander, Office 1, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: [phone] and [phone], respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 6, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber (“PSF”) from Taiwan. See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 31283 (June 6, 2007). We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results.

On October 24, 2007, we received case briefs from Wellman, Inc. and Invista, S.a.r.l. (collectively, “the petitioners”), and Far Eastern Textile Limited (“FET” or “respondent”). On November 6, 2007, we received rebuttal briefs from the FET and Fibertex Corporation (“Fibertex” or “importer”), an importer of subject merchandise.

Period of Review

The period of review (“POR”) is May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006.

Scope of the Order

For the purposes of this order, the product covered is certain polyester staple fiber (“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 this 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 under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheading 5503.20.00.25 ^[1] is specifically excluded from this order. Also specifically excluded from this 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 this 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 this 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 order is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this review are addressed in the December 3, 2007, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Sixth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan” (“Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix is a list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded in the Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department building (“CRU”). In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/​frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether FET's sales of PSF to the United States were made at less than normal value (“NV”), we compared export price (“EP”) to the NV. We calculated EP, NV, constructed value (“CV”), and the cost of production (“COP”), based on the same methodologies used in the preliminary results, except that we did not weight-average FET's raw material costs for the final results.

Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in “substantial quantities.” See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The sales were made within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because we examined below-cost sales occurring during the entire POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.

We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales were at prices less than the COP and, thus, the below-cost sales were made within an extended period of time and 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 sales and used the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

Final Results of the Review

We find that the following dumping margin exists for the period May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006:

Exporter/manufacturer	Weighted-average margin percentage
Far Eastern Textile Limited	0.30 (de minimis).

Assessment Rates

The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.

FET has indicated that it was not the importer of record for any of its sales to the United States during the POR. FET reported the name of its U.S. customer as the importer of record for all U.S. sales. As such, FET did not report the entered value for any of its U.S. sales. Accordingly, we have calculated importer-specific 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 assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of these 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 period of review produced by the respondent for which it did not know its 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. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements are effective for all shipments of PSF from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate listed above (except no cash deposit will be required if its weighted-average margin is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original less-than-fair-value investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final determination for which the manufacturer or exporter received an individual rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 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 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). These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

This notice serves as a final 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 doubled antidumping duties.

Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing these results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: December 3, 2007.

Stephen J. Claeys,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

List of Comments in the Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Application of Total Adverse Facts Available.

Comment 2: Fluctuating Monthly Costs.

Footnotes

1.  The most current edition of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2006)—Supplement 1 (Rev 1) (August 1, 2006) incorporates the revision of HTSUS number 5503.20.00.20 to 5503.20.00.25.