Skip to Content

Notice

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination To Revoke the Order in Part

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble

AGENCY:

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY:

On June 10, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber from the Republic of Korea (“Korea”). The period of review is May 1, 2002, through April 30, 2003. 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 margins for the three manufacturers/exporters are listed below in the “Final Results of the Review” section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

October 18, 2004.

Start Further Info

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew McAllister, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1174.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Since the publication of the preliminary results in this review (see Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea; Preliminary Results of Start Printed Page 61342Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 69 FR 32497 (June 10, 2004) (“Preliminary Results”)), the following events have occurred.

We invited parties to comment on the preliminary results of the review. On June 10, 2004, we granted a request submitted by Saehan for an extension to file rebuttal briefs until July 19, 2004. On July 12, 2004, Arteva Specialties S.a.r.l., d/b/a KoSa and Wellman, Inc. (“the petitioners”), and the respondents Saehan Industries, Inc. (“Saehan”) and Huvis Corporation (“Huvis”) filed case briefs. On July 19, 2004, Huvis filed a rebuttal brief. A public hearing was held at the request of Saehan on August 3, 2004.

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 5503.20.00.20 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.

Period of Review

The period of review (“POR”) is May 1, 2002, through April 30, 2003.

Verification

As stated in the Preliminary Results and provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), we verified information provided by Keon Baek Co. Ltd. (“Keon Baek”) using standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities, examination of relevant sales, cost and financial records, and selection of original documentation containing relevant information.

Determination To Revoke

The Department “may revoke, in whole or in part” an antidumping duty order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This regulation requires, inter alia, that a company requesting revocation must submit the following: (1) A certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than normal value (“NV”) in the current review period and that the company will not sell at less than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold the subject merchandise in each of the three years forming the basis of the request in commercial quantities; and, (3) an agreement to reinstatement of the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), Keon Baek requested revocation of the antidumping duty order as it pertains to that company. Consistent with the Preliminary Results, we continue to find that the request from Keon Baek meets all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1).

According to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), upon receipt of such a request, the Department may revoke an order, in part, if it concludes that (1) the company in question has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) the continued application of the antidumping duty order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping; and (3) the company has agreed to its immediate reinstatement in the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV.

As explained in these final results, our calculations show that Keon Baek sold PSF at not less than NV during the current review period. In addition, Keon Baek sold PSF at not less than NV during the 1999-2001 review period (i.e., Keon Baek's dumping margin was zero or de minimis). See Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 63616 (October 15, 2002) (“1999-2001 PSF AR Final”), covering the period November 8, 1999, through April 30, 2001. As permitted by 19 CFR 351.222(d), we did not review the intervening review period.

Moreover, based on our examination of the sales data submitted by Keon Baek, we find that Keon Baek sold the subject merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities in each of the consecutive years cited by Keon Baek to support its request for revocation. See Memorandum to the File, “Sales and Cost Verification Report—Keon Baek,” dated May 26, 2004 (“Keon Baek Verification Report”), which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in room B-099 of the main Department building.

Finally, we find that application of the antidumping order to Keon Baek is no longer warranted for the following reasons: (1) As noted above, the company had zero or de minimis margins for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) the company has agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department finds that it has resumed making sales at less than NV; and (3) the continued application of the order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping.

Therefore, we determine that Keon Baek qualifies for revocation of the order on PSF pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) and that the order, with respect to subject merchandise produced and exported by Keon Baek, should be revoked. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we are terminating the suspension of liquidation for subject merchandise produced and exported by Keon Baek that was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 1, 2003, and will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to refund with interest any cash deposits for such entries.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” from Jeffrey A. May, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated October 8, 2004 (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 Start Printed Page 61343 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 CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/​frn/​index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Fair Value Comparisons

We calculated export price (“EP”), NV, and the cost of production (“COP”) based on the same methodologies used in the Preliminary Results with the following exceptions:

  • For Saehan, we have adjusted the general and administrative expense ratio. See Memorandum from Julie H. Santoboni to File, “Final Results Calculation Memorandum for Saehan Industries, Inc.,” dated October 8, 2004 (Saehan Calculation Memorandum); see also Decision Memorandum, at Comments 1-3.
  • For Saehan, we also corrected certain clerical errors made in the preliminary margin programs. See Saehan Calculation Memorandum.
  • With respect to Huvis, for one of its home market customers, we have adjusted the credit period for open payment sales. See Memorandum from Team to File, “Final Results Calculation Memorandum for Huvis Corporation,” dated October 8, 2004; see also Decision Memorandum, at Comment 5.

Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were made 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 12-month period were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determined that such below-cost 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)(1)(B) of the Act.

We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent of Keon Baek's, Saehan's and Huvis' home market sales were at prices less than the 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 provide for 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).

Currency Conversions

We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act in the same manner as in the Preliminary Results.

Final Results of the Review

We determine that the following percentage margins exist for the period May 1, 2002, through April 30, 2003:

Exporter/manufacturerWeighted-average margin percentage
Huvis Corporation1.54
Keon Baek Co., Ltd1 0.07
Saehan Industries, Inc4.19
1 De minimis.

Assessment Rates

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. 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 (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total value of the sales to that importer (or customer). Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate was greater than de minimis, we calculated a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or customer).

The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to the CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review.

Cash Deposit Rates

The following antidumping duty deposits will be required on all shipments of PSF from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, effective 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 rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates listed above (except no cash deposit will be required if a company's weighted-average margin is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, 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, 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).

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 APOs

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. Start Printed Page 61344

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

Start Signature

Dated: October 8, 2004.

James J. Jochum,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

End Signature

Appendix I—List of Comments in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Inclusion of Indirect Selling Expenses in Saehan's G&A Calculation.

Comment 2: Inclusion of Non-Operating Gains and Losses in Saehan's G&A Calculation.

Comment 3: Calculation of Saehan's Net Interest Expense Ratio.

Comment 4: Clerical Errors in Saehan's Preliminary Margin Calculations.

Comment 5: Huvis' Reported Credit Expenses on Home Market Sales.

Comment 6: Huvis' Home Market Short-Term Interest Rate.

End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. E4-2705 Filed 10-15-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P