U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4257 September 2011

Washington, DC 20436

CERTAIN POLYESTER STAPLE FIBER 

FROM KOREA AND TAIWAN

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Second Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson, Vice Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Elizabeth Haines, Investigator 

Jackie Jones, Industry Analyst 

Karl von Schriltz, Attorney 

Steven Hudgens, Statistician 
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4257 September 2011

CERTAIN POLYESTER STAPLE FIBER 

FROM KOREA AND TAIWAN

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Second Review)

CONTENTS

Page

Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Views of the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Information obtained in the review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

The original investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

 The first five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Related investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Commerce’s administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Commerce’s changed circumstances reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Commerce’s final results of expedited sunset review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Physical Characteristics and end-use applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

The U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

U.S. capacity, production, capacity utilization, U.S. commercial shipments,

and financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

The industry in Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

The industry in Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Antidumping duty orders in third-country markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

Appendix

A. Federal Register notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Note.–Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be

published and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by

asterisks.

i

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Second Review)

CERTAIN POLYESTER STAPLE FIBER FROM KOREA AND TAIWAN

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1 developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States 

International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 

1930 (19 U.S.C. ' 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain polyester staple fiber

from Korea and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an 

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these reviews on March 1, 2011 (76 F.R. 11268) and determined on 

June 6, 2011 that it would conduct expedited reviews (76 F.R. 37830, June 28, 2011). 

 

 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission=s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR ' 207.2(f)).

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in these five-year reviews, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain polyester

staple fiber (“certain PSF”) from Korea and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence

of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

I. BACKGROUND

In May of 2000, the Commission unanimously determined that an industry in the United States

was materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of conventional polyester staple fiber (i.e., certain

PSF), but reached a negative determination with respect to LTFV imports of low-melt polyester staple

fiber.1

 On May 25, 2005, Commerce imposed an antidumping duty order on certain PSF from Korea and

Taiwan.2

On July 5, 2005, the Commission determined to conduct full reviews of the antidumping duty

orders on certain PSF from Korea and Taiwan and, on March 7, 2006, the Commission determined that

revocation of the orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.3

 Commerce published its notice of

continuation of the antidumping duty orders on April 3, 2006.4

 Respondent interested parties appealed,

and the U.S. Court of International Trade affirmed the Commission’s determinations.5

The Commission instituted these second five-year reviews of the orders at issue on March 1,

2011.6

 On June 6, 2011, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to

its notice of institution was adequate, but that the respondent interested party group response was

inadequate.7

 In the absence of an adequate respondent interested party group response, or other factors

warranting a full review, the Commission determined to conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section

751(c)(3) of the Act.8 9

 Domestic producers DAK Americas LLC (“DAK”), Palmetto Synthetics LLC

(“Palmetto”), U.S. Fibers, and Wellman Plastics Recycling LLC (“Wellman”) (collectively, the “domestic

interested parties”), jointly responded to the Commission’s notice of institution and filed comments. No

respondent interested party has provided any information or argument to the Commission.

 1 Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Final), USITC Pub. 3300 (May

2000) (“Original Determinations”). Chairman Bragg dissented from the majority’s finding that low melt polyester

staple fiber constituted a separate like product, and found that based on a single domestic like product, coextensive

with the scope, the domestic industry was materially injured by reason of LTFV import of PSF, including low-melt

fiber. See id. at 3 n.1.

 2

 65 Fed. Reg. 33807 (May 25, 2000).

 3

 Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-825-826 (Review), USITC Pub. 3843

(March 2006) (“First Five-Year Review Determinations”). 

 4

 71 Fed. Reg. 16558.

 5

 Consolidated Fibers v. United States, 571 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008). Respondent interested

parties also appealed the Commission’s denial of their request that the Commission reconsider its original

determinations based on alleged evidence of a price fixing conspiracy, and the Court affirmed the Commission. 

Consolidated Fibers v. United States, 535 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008). 

 6

 76 Fed. Reg. 11268.

 7

 See Confidential Staff Report (“CR”)/ Public Staff Report (“PR”) at Appendix B.

 8

 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3).

 9

 See CR/PR at Appendix B.

3
II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c) of the Act, the Commission defines the

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”10 The Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product

which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to

an investigation under this subtitle.”11 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to examine the

like product definition from the original determination and any completed reviews and consider whether

the record indicates any reason to revisit the prior findings.12

In these five-year reviews, Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as follows:

[S]ynthetic 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

these orders 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.13 

Commerce has specifically excluded the following products from the scope of the orders: 

[M]erchandise of less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable in the HTS at

subheading 5503.20.0020 (5503.20.0025 in the 2005 HTS) and known to the industry as PSF for

spinning and generally used in woven and knit applications to produce textile and apparel

products; polyester staple fibers 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 low-melt polyester staple fiber, defined as

bi-component fiber with an outer sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its

inner core.14

Certain PSF, a man-made fiber that is similar in appearance to cotton or wool when baled, is

known in the industry as “fiber for fill” because it is primarily used as polyester fiberfill for stuffing

furniture, comforters, pillows, cushions, sleeping bags, and ski jackets.15 Certain PSF is distinguishable

from other types of PSF used for carpets and for spinning textiles by the denier of the fiber, the length of

the fiber, and in some cases the finish and “crimp” of the fiber.16 

 10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 11 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); see, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v.

Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19

CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v.

United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also S.

Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91 (1979).

 12 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks From Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-377 (Second Review),

USITC Pub. 3831 at 8-9 (Dec. 2005); Crawfish Tail Meat From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC Pub.

3614 at 4 (Jul. 2003); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub.

3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003).

 13 CR at I-7; PR at I-7.

 14 CR at I-7; PR at I-7.

 15 CR at I-8; PR at I-8.

 16 CR at I-8; PR at I-8.

4
In the original investigations, the Commission found two domestic like products corresponding to

1) low-melt fiber, and 2) conventional PSF.17 Because the Commission found no material injury or threat

of material injury by reason of subject imports with respect to low-melt fiber, the relevant domestic like

product definition from the original investigations is all conventional PSF, the product subject to the

antidumping duty orders.

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission found that the record contained no information

suggesting that it would be appropriate to reconsider the domestic like product definition from the

original investigations, and no interested party disagreed with that definition.18 Accordingly, the

Commission defined the domestic like product as all certain PSF, coextensive with the scope of the

reviews.19

In these reviews, the domestic interested parties agree with the domestic like product definition

from the original investigations (i.e., the domestic like product corresponding to all conventional

polyester staple fiber) and also with the domestic like product definition from the first five-year reviews,

corresponding to Commerce’s scope definition.20 No new information suggests that the domestic like

product definition should be revisited and no party has expressed disagreement with it. Therefore, for the

reasons stated in the original determinations and the first five-year reviews, we continue to define the

domestic like product as all certain PSF, corresponding to the scope of Commerce’s investigations and

reviews.

B. Domestic Industry and Related Parties

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant industry as the domestic “producers as a whole

of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”21 In defining the domestic

industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry producers of all domestic

production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic

merchant market. Section 771(4)(B) of the Act allows the Commission, if appropriate circumstances

exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are related to an exporter or importer of

subject merchandise, or which are themselves importers.22 

 17 Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Final), USITC Pub. 3300 (May

2000) (“Original Determinations”) at 9. Chairman Bragg dissented from the majority’s finding that low melt

polyester staple fiber constituted a separate like product, and found that based on a single domestic like product,

coextensive with the scope, the domestic industry was materially injured by reason of LTFV import of PSF,

including low-melt fiber. See id. at 3 n.1.

 18 First Review Determinations at 5-6.

 19 First Review Determination at 6.

 20 CR at I-12; PR at I-10. 

 21 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 are applicable to the entire subtitle containing the

antidumping and countervailing duty laws, including 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675 and 1675a. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677.

 22 The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to

exclude a related party include the following:

(1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing producer;

(2) the reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation, i.e., whether the

firm benefits from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to

continue production and compete in the U.S. market; and

(3) the position of the related producer vis-a-vis the rest of the industry, i.e., whether inclusion or exclusion

of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry.

See, e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991 F.2d

809 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

(continued...)

5
In the original investigations, the Commission defined two domestic industries corresponding to

the two domestic like products: 1) all domestic producers of conventional PSF; and 2) all domestic

producers of low melt fiber.23 The Commission also determined that circumstances did not warrant the

exclusion of either Nan Ya or *** from the domestic industry as related parties.24 Though wholly owned

by a Taiwanese foreign producer, Nan Ya imported no subject merchandise over the period examined in

the investigations and was no more profitable than any other domestic producer.25 The Commission

concluded that *** did not qualify as a related party based on its purchases of subject imports from ***,

an importer, because the quantity of its purchases was not sufficient to give it direct or indirect control

over *** within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B)(ii).26

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission defined the domestic industry as all domestic

producers of certain PSF.27 The Commission also determined that circumstances did not warrant the

exclusion, under the related parties provision, of producers Formed Fiber Technologies, d/b/a Color-Fi

(“FFT”), Nan Ya, or United Synthetics, Inc. (“United Synthetics”). The Commission found that FFT’s

importation of certain PSF from Korea had neither shielded it from competition with subject imports nor

benefitted the company’s domestic PSF operations, because ***.28 The Commission found that

circumstances did not warrant exclusion of Nan Ya because its primary interest appeared to be in

domestic production. It imported no *** during the period examined in the reviews, and it ***

continuation of the orders.29 The Commission also found that circumstances did not warrant exclusion of

United Synthetics because that company’s primary interest appeared to be in domestic production and it

*** on continuation of the orders.30 

In these reviews, no party disagrees with the domestic industry definition from the first five-year

reviews, and no new facts have been presented to warrant a different definition. We therefore define the

domestic industry to include all known domestic producers of certain PSF -- Color-Fi (Division of FFT),

DAK, Invista (currently operating as Auriga Polymers), Nan Ya, Palmetto, United Synthetics, U.S.

Fibers, and Wellman.31 

We also find that circumstances do not warrant the exclusion of related parties Nan Ya and

Wellman from the domestic industry. Nan Ya continues to qualify as a related party because the

information available indicates that it remains a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nan Ya Plastics Corp. of

 22 (...continued)

The Commission has also concluded that a domestic producer that does not itself import subject

merchandise, or does not share a corporate affiliation with an importer, may nonetheless be deemed a related party if

it controls large volumes of imports. The Commission has found such control to exist where the domestic producer

was responsible for a predominant proportion of an importer’s purchases and the importer’s purchases were

substantial. See, e.g., Foundry Coke from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-891 (Final), USITC Pub. 3449 (September 2001)

at 8-9.

 23 Original Determinations at 9-10.

 24 Confidential Views, Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Final)

(“Confidential Original Determinations”) at 14.

 25 Original Determinations at 11.

 26 Confidential Original Determinations at 15-16.

 27 First Review Determinations at 6.

 28 Confidential Views, Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-825-826 (Review)

(“Confidential First Review Determinations”) at 7.

 29 Confidential First Review Determinations at 7-8. In addition, the Commission observed that no party argued

that Nan Ya was shielded from subject import competition or had benefitted in any way from its relationship with a

subject foreign producer. Id. at 8.

 30 Confidential First Review Determinations at 8. In addition, the Commission observed that no party argued that

United Synthetics was shielded from subject import competition or had benefitted in any way from its relationship

with an importer of subject merchandise. Id.

 31 CR/PR at Table I-2.

6
Taiwan, a subject foreign producer and exporter.32 The limited information available on the record of

these reviews indicates that Nan Ya remained a significant domestic producer during the period

examined, having produced an estimated *** million pounds of certain PSF in 2010, equivalent to ***

percent of estimated domestic industry production that year.33 There is no information on the record

suggesting that Nan Ya was shielded in any way from subject import competition or otherwise benefitted

from its relationship with a subject foreign producer, and the domestic interested parties have not argued

for its exclusion. We therefore find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude Nan Ya from

the domestic industry as a related party.

United Synthetics continues to qualify as a related party because the information available

indicates that its parent company, Korea Synthetic Fibers, Inc., is a subject foreign producer.34 The

limited information available on the record of these reviews indicates that United Synthetics remained a

significant domestic producer during the period examined, having produced an estimated *** million

pounds of certain PSF in 2010, equivalent to *** percent of estimated domestic industry production that

year.35 There is no information on the record suggesting that United Synthetics was shielded in any way

from subject import competition or otherwise benefitted from its relationship with a subject foreign

producer, and the domestic interested parties have not argued for its exclusion. We therefore find that

appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude United Synthetics from the domestic industry as a

related party.

In sum, we define the domestic industry as all domestic producers of certain PSF.

III. CUMULATION

A. Legal Standard

With respect to five-year reviews, section 752(a) of the Act provides as follows:

the Commission may cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the subject

merchandise from all countries with respect to which reviews under section 1675(b) or

(c) of this title were initiated on the same day, if such imports would be likely to compete

with each other and with domestic like products in the United States market. The

Commission shall not cumulatively assess the volume and effects of imports of the

subject merchandise in a case in which it determines that such imports are likely to have

no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.36

 32 CR at I-14; PR at I-11; Domestic Interested Parties’ Response at 10, Exhibit 5.

 33 CR/PR at Table I-2. The record contains no information on whether Nan Ya imported subject merchandise

during the period examined in these reviews, as the Commission does not collect such information in expedited

reviews. Because Nan Ya did not respond to the notice of institution, its position on whether the orders should be

continued is not known. In the first five-year reviews, Nan Ya *** and *** continuation of the orders. Confidential

First Review Determinations at 7-8. 

 34 CR at I-14; Domestic Interested Parties’ Response at 10, Exhibit 5.

 35 CR/PR at Table I-2. The record contains no information on whether United Synthetics imported subject

merchandise during the period examined in these reviews, as the Commission does not collect such information in

expedited reviews. Because United Synthetics did not respond to the notice of institution, its position on whether the

orders should be continued is not known. In the first five-year reviews, United Synthetics *** and *** continuation

of the orders. Confidential First Review Determinations at 8. 

 36 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

7
Cumulation therefore is discretionary in five-year reviews, unlike in original investigations,

which are governed by section 771(7)(G)(i) of the Act.37 The Commission may exercise its discretion to

cumulate, however, only if the reviews are initiated on the same day, the Commission determines that the

subject imports are likely to compete with each other and the domestic like product in the U.S. market,

and imports from each such subject country are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the

domestic industry in the event of revocation. Our focus in five-year reviews is not only on present

conditions of competition, but also on likely conditions of competition in the reasonably foreseeable

future.

The threshold criterion for cumulation in these reviews is satisfied because both five-year reviews

at issue were instituted on the same day, March 1, 2011.38 We consider three issues in deciding whether

to exercise our discretion to cumulate the subject imports: (1) whether imports from any of the subject

countries are precluded from cumulation because they are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on

the domestic industry; (2) whether there is a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition among

imports from the subject countries and the domestic like product; and (3) whether there are similarities

and differences in the likely conditions of competition under which subject imports are likely to compete

in the U.S. market.39 40 

In these reviews, there is no new evidence on the record or interested party argument that would

warrant departure from the Commission’s finding in the first five-year reviews that revocation of either of

the individual antidumping duty orders on Korea or Taiwan would likely have a discernible adverse

 37 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i); see also, e.g., Nucor Corp. v. United States, 601 F.3d 1291, 1293, App. No. 2009-

1234, Slip Op. at 7-8 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2010) (Commission may reasonably consider likely differing conditions of

competition in deciding whether to cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews); Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v.

United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1370, 1378 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (recognizing the wide latitude the Commission has

in selecting the types of factors it considers relevant in deciding whether to exercise discretion to cumulate subject

imports in five-year reviews); Nucor Corp. v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1337-38 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008).

 38 76 Fed. Reg. 11268.

 39 Chairman Okun and Commissioner Pearson note that, while they consider the same issues discussed in this

section in determining whether to exercise their discretion to cumulate the subject imports, their analytical

framework begins with whether imports from the subject countries are likely to face similar conditions of

competition. For those subject imports which are likely to compete under similar conditions of competition, they

next proceed to consider whether there is a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition whereby those imports

are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product. Finally, if based on that analysis they

intend to exercise their discretion to cumulate one or more subject countries, they analyze whether they are

precluded from cumulating such imports because the imports from one or more subject countries, assessed

individually, are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry. See Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bar From Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA873 to 875, 877 to 880, and 882 (Review), USITC Pub. 3933 (Jul. 2007) (Separate and Dissenting Views of

Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun Regarding Cumulation). Accord Nucor Corp.

v. United States, 605 F. Supp.2d 1361, 1372 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009); Nucor Corp. v. United States, 594 F. Supp.2d

1320, 1345-47 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008), aff’d, Slip Op. 2009-1234 (Fed Cir. Apr. 7, 2010).

 40 Commissioners Lane and Pinkert explain their analysis of other considerations as follows. Where, in a fiveyear review, they do not find that the imports of the subject merchandise would be likely to have no discernible

adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation and find that such imports would be likely to

compete with each other and with the domestic like product in the U.S. market, they cumulate them unless there is a

condition or propensity – not merely a trend – that is likely to persist for a reasonably foreseeable time and that

significantly limits competition such that cumulation is not warranted. They note, as is pointed out in the text, the

lack of record information about the industries in the subject countries. Consequently, they find that there is no

condition or propensity warranting non-cumulation with respect to either of the subject countries, and they have

cumulated imports from both in these reviews.

8
impact on the domestic industry.41 Over the period examined in the original investigations, subject import

volume from each of the subject countries was significant and subject import volume and market share

increased significantly with respect to both Korea and Taiwan.42 Subject imports from Korea and Taiwan

maintained a significant presence in the U.S. market during the period examined in the first reviews, as

well as in these reviews.43 The information available indicates that subject foreign producers in both

Korea and Taiwan possess significant excess capacity44 and that subject foreign producers in Taiwan are

export oriented to a significant degree.45 Based on the information available in these reviews, we find that

revocation of either of the individual antidumping duty orders on certain PSF from Korea and Taiwan

would likely have a discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry. 

The Commission generally has considered four factors intended to provide a framework for

determining whether the imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.46 Only a

 41 See First Review Determinations at 9.

 42 Over the period examined in the original investigations, subject imports from Korea increased from *** pounds

in 1997, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, to *** pounds in 1999, equivalent to *** percent

of apparent U.S. consumption. CR/PR at Appendix C. Subject imports from Taiwan increased from *** pounds in

1997, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, to *** pounds in 1999, equivalent to *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption. Id.

 43 Subject imports from Korea increased irregularly during the period examined in the first reviews, increasing

from 198,608 pounds in 2000 to 258,351 pounds in 2003 before declining to 209,856 short tons in 2004, a level still

higher than in 2000. CR/PR at Appendix C. As a share of apparent U.S. consumption, subject imports from Korea

increased from 23.0 percent in 2000 to 24.3 percent in 2003 but then declined to 19.8 percent in 2004. Id. During

the period examined in these reviews, subject imports from Korea declined from 184,832 pounds in 2005 to 169,865

pounds in 2006, increased to 208,673 pounds in 2007, declined to 176,104 pounds in 2008 and 135,582 pounds in

2009, and then increased to 140,339 pounds in 2010. Id. at Table I-3. Subject imports from Korea were equivalent

to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2010, the only year for which apparent U.S. consumption data is

available. Id. at Table I-4. 

Subject imports from Taiwan declined irregularly during the period examined in the first review, increasing

from 164,473 pounds in 2000 to 170,054 pounds in 2001 before declining steadily to 72,376 pounds in 2004. Id. As

a share of apparent U.S. consumption, subject imports from Taiwan increased from 19.1 percent in 2000 to 19.3

percent in 2001 but then declined steadily to 6.8 percent in 2004. Id. During the period examined in these reviews,

subject imports from Taiwan declined from 54,139 pounds in 2005 to 37,471 pounds in 2006, increased to 48,191

pounds in 2007, declined to 30,061 pounds in 2008 and 14,912 pounds in 2009, and then increased to 26,120 pounds

in 2010. Id. at Table I-3. Subject imports from Taiwan were equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption in 2010, the only year for which apparent U.S. consumption data is available. Id. at Table I-4. 

 44 The information available indicates that the two largest Korean producers of certain PSF, Huvis Corp.

(“Huvis”) and Woongjin Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Woongjin”), possessed a capacity of 1,341,279 pounds during the

2005-2010 period, while their production fluctuated within a narrow band from a low of 1,050,966 pounds in 2008

to a high of 1,181,159 pounds in 2007. CR at I-18; PR at I-15. In 2010, these two Korean producers produced

1,154,070 pounds of PSF for a capacity utilization rate of 86.0 percent, leaving them with excess capacity of 187,209

pounds. CR/PR at Table I-5.

The information available also indicates that Taiwan industry capacity was 2,000,000 pounds throughout

the period, while production declined from 1,613,516 pounds in 2005 to 1,048,647 pounds in 2008 before increasing

to 1,237,695 pounds in 2010. Id. at Table I-6. The Taiwan industry’s rate of capacity utilization was 61.9 percent in

2010, resulting in excess capacity of 762,305 pounds. Id. 

 45 Based on the information available, the Taiwan industry’s exports as a share of production ranged from 65.7 to

74.9 percent during the 2005-2010 period, and were 69.3 percent in 2010. CR/PR at Table I-6. 

 46 The four factors generally considered by the Commission in assessing whether there is a reasonable overlap in

competition of imports with each other and with the domestic like product are as follows: (1) the degree of

fungibility between the imports from different countries and between imports and the domestic like product,

including consideration of specific customer requirements and other quality related questions; (2) the presence of

sales or offers to sell in the same geographical markets of imports from different countries and the domestic like

(continued...)

9
“reasonable overlap” of competition is required.47 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether

there likely would be competition even if none currently exists because the subject imports are absent

from the U.S. market.48 Based on these four factors, the Commission in the first five-year reviews found

a reasonable overlap of competition between and among subject imports from Korea and Taiwan and the

domestic like product.49 

In the absence of new information to the contrary, our findings from the first five-year reviews

concerning the likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition remain valid in these reviews.50 There is

no new information to suggest that certain PSF from Korea, Taiwan, and the United States is any less

interchangeable today than in the first five-year reviews.51 Although the record of these reviews does not

contain information on the geographic distribution of subject imports from Korea and Taiwan, a

significant volume of subject imports from each country was present in the U.S. market in each year of

the 2005-2010 period.52 There is no new information on the record to suggest that the channels of

distribution for the domestic like product and for subject imports from Korea and Taiwan, respectively,

have changed since the first five-year reviews, when most certain PSF from all three sources was sold

directly to end users, with the balance sold to distributors.53 No interested party has argued in these

current reviews that the Commission should find that there would likely be no reasonable overlap of

competition were the orders to be revoked. Based on the limited information available on the record of

these reviews, we find that there would likely be a reasonable overlap of competition between subject

imports and the domestic like product, as well as between subject imports from Korea and Taiwan, were

the orders to be revoked. For these reasons, and because there is no indication of other significant

differences in the likely conditions of competition in the market such that the likely volume and effect of

subject imports from Korea and Taiwan would be substantially different, we conclude that it is

appropriate to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Korea and Taiwan in these

reviews.

 46 (...continued)

product; (3) the existence of common or similar channels of distribution for imports from different countries and the

domestic like product; and (4) whether the imports are simultaneously present in the market. See, e.g., Wieland

Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989).

 47 See Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 916 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Wieland Werke, 718 F. Supp.

at 52 (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”); United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 

673, 685 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We note, however, that there have been

investigations where the Commission has found an insufficient overlap in competition and has declined to cumulate

subject imports. See, e.g., Live Cattle From Canada and Mexico, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-386 and 731-TA-812 to 813

(Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3155 at 15 (Feb. 1999), aff’d sub nom, Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Foundation v.

United States, 74 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999); Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the

Republic of Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-761 to 762 (Final), USITC Pub. 3098 at 13-15 (Apr. 1998).

 48 See generally Chefline Corp. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002).

 49 See First Review Determinations at 10-11.

 50 See Second Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3809 at 11-12.

 51 See Domestic Interested Parties’ Response at 7; Domestic Interested Parties’ Comments at 4.

 52 CR/PR at Table I-3. 

 53 First Review Determinations at 11.

10
IV. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS ARE REVOKED

A. Legal Standard

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke an

antidumping or countervailing duty order unless (1) it makes a determination that dumping or

subsidization is likely to continue or recur and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation

of the antidumping or countervailing duty order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”54 The SAA states that “under the likelihood

standard, the Commission will engage in a counterfactual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the

reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in the status quo – the revocation or termination of a

proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”55 Thus, the

likelihood standard is prospective in nature.56 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that

“likely,” as used in the five-year review provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission

applies that standard in five-year reviews.57 58 59

The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or termination

may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”60 According to

the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will exceed the

‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”61

 54 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 55 SAA at 883-84. The SAA states that “{t}he likelihood of injury standard applies regardless of the nature of the

Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury, or material retardation of an

industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were never completed.” Id. at 883.

 56 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it

indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely continued depressed

shipment levels and current and likely continued {sic} prices for the domestic like product in the U.S. market in

making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is revoked.” 

SAA at 884.

 57 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ means

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268

(Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v.

United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s

opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals

(Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-105 at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a

likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002)

(“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 58 For a complete statement of Chairman Okun’s interpretation of the likely standard, see Additional Views of

Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun Concerning the “Likely” Standard in Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel

Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-362 (Review) and

731-TA-707 to 710 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005).

 59 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy, Inv.

No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004), she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

International Trade’s interpretation of “likely,” but she will apply the Court’s standard in these reviews and all

subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

addresses this issue.

 60 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 61 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility or

differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domestic

products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts),

(continued...)

11
Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in an original

antidumping duty investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. The statute provides

that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject

merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”62 It

directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury determination, whether any improvement in

the state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement under review, whether the

industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked or the suspension agreement is

terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

§ 1675(a)(4).63 The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the

Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the

Commission’s determination.64

No respondent interested parties participated in these expedited reviews. The record, therefore,

contains limited new information with respect to the certain PSF industries in Korea and Taiwan, as well

as limited information on the U.S. certain PSF market during the period of review. Accordingly, for our

determinations, we rely as appropriate on the facts available from the original investigations and first

reviews and the limited new information on the record of these reviews.65 66

 61 (...continued)

and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term,

such as planned investment and the shifting of production facilities.” Id.

 62 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 63 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). There have been no duty absorption findings on the subject merchandise covered by

the orders. See 76 Fed. Reg. 38612 (July 1, 2011). 

 64 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

 65 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

determination when (1) necessary information is not available on the record or (2) an interested party or other person

withholds information requested by the agency, fails to provide such information in the time, form, or manner

requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to section

782(i) of the Act. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a). The verification requirements in section 782(i) are applicable only to

Commerce. 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i). See Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 2001) (“[T]he ITC correctly responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification

procedures for the evidence before it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of a

Commission investigation.”).

 66 Chairman Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

reviews, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as

a whole in making its determination. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts supplied by

the participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does

not automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the

level of participation, the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors

and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes

determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic

industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

12
B. Conditions of Competition

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, the statute directs

the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”67 

In the original investigations, the Commission addressed five conditions of competition relevant

to its analysis. First, it observed that the healthy economy, and particularly the strong housing market,

had contributed to increasing demand for PSF.68 It also noted that PSF demand was somewhat sensitive

to price, notwithstanding the lack of substitutes, due to the high cost share of PSF in end-use products.69

Second, it noted that the cost of shifting production between PSF and non-subject products on the same

equipment was low, and far less than the significant cost of assembling a new production line.70 Third, it

noted that the willingness of purchasers to pay a premium for branded PSF had been significantly eroded

over the period examined in the investigations.71 Fourth, it contrasted the insignificant market share of

non-subject imports with the dominant shares held by subject imports and the domestic like product.72

Finally, the Commission rejected the respondents’ assertion that subject imported conjugate and

regenerated PSF competed primarily with non-PSF alternative products, and not with the domestic like

product.73 The record indicated that purchasers were driven by price considerations to blend different

types of PSF to achieve desired product characteristics at a given price point.74 Respondents could cite no

niche market served by subject imported conjugate and regenerated PSF, and the import volume of each

product was much larger than would be expected for products serving niche markets.75 Pricing data did

not corroborate the respondents’ argument that conjugate PSF was a premium specialty product, and

purchasers had reported that both conjugate and regenerated PSF were generally interchangeable with

other types of PSF.76

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission found the following conditions of competition

relevant to its analysis.77 With respect to demand, the Commission found that apparent U.S. consumption

increased 22.8 percent between 2000 and 2004, and was 0.3 percent higher in January-September 2005

than in January-September 2004, as the strong housing market increased demand for furniture and

bedding containing PSF.78 With respect to supply, the Commission observed that the domestic industry

had undergone a significant restructuring over the period of review, including the emergence of three new

domestic producers and significant reductions in production capacity.79 The Commission found that the

domestic industry’s raw material costs had increased significantly over the period of review, with raw

material costs as a share of total cost of goods sold increasing from 60 percent in 2000 to 72 percent in

 67 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 68 Original Determinations at 14.

 69 Original Determinations at 14.

 70 Original Determinations at 15.

 71 Original Determinations at 15.

 72 Original Determinations at 15.

 73 Original Determinations at 15.

 74 Original Determinations at 15.

 75 Original Determinations at 16.

 76 Original Determinations at 16.

 77 The Commission also considered and rejected the respondent interested parties’ argument that certain domestic

producers had engaged in an antitrust conspiracy that corrupted the record of the reviews. First Review

Determinations at 17. Based on “the weight of the voluminous record evidence,” the Commission found that any

conspiracy was primarily limited to fine denier PSF, a nonsubject product, and could therefore have had no

significant effect on the record of the reviews. Id. at 22-23. 

 78 First Review Determinations at 14.

 79 First Review Determinations at 14.

13
2004 and 73 percent in interim 2005.80 It found that nonsubject import volume doubled between 2000

and 2004 as China emerged as the largest source of nonsubject imported PSF.81 Finally, the Commission

found a substantial degree of substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product, with

purchasers blending different types of PSF to achieve desired product characteristics at a given price

point.82 

In these reviews, we find the following conditions of competition relevant to our analysis.

1. Demand Conditions

The information available indicates that U.S. demand for certain PSF declined 18.3 percent

between 2004 and 2010, from 1.1 billion pounds to 865 million pounds.83 The domestic interested parties

attribute the decline in U.S. demand for certain PSF to the reduced production of downstream articles

containing certain PSF in the United States, as imports of such articles from China increased; the recent

downturn in the housing market; and new federal regulations concerning fire retardant materials that have

reduced demand for certain types of PSF.84

2. Supply Conditions

The U.S. certain PSF market is supplied by domestic producers, subject imports, and nonsubject

imports. Since the original investigations, the number of domestic producers has increased from six to

eight and the composition of the domestic industry has changed, with three producers having exited the

market (DuPont, Intercontinental Polymers, and KoSa) and five producers having entered the market

(DAK, Invista (currently operating as Auriga Polymers), U.S. Fibers, United Synthetics, and Palmetto).85

The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption declined from 63.7 percent in 1997 to 58.1

percent in 1999, remained at 57.6 percent in 2004, and then declined to *** percent in 2010.86

Cumulated subject imports maintained a significant presence in the U.S. market throughout the

2005-2010 period and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2010.87

Nonsubject imports also maintained a significant presence in the U.S. market during the 2005-

2010 period and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2010.88 The top four

nonsubject country sources of certain PSF in 2010 were China, India, Indonesia, and Thailand.89

3. Substitutability

In the absence of any new evidence to the contrary on the record of these reviews, we adopt our

finding from the first five-year reviews that there is a substantial degree of interchangeability between

subject imports from Korea and Taiwan and between cumulated subject imports and the domestic like

 80 First Review Determinations at 14-15.

 81 First Review Determinations at 15. 

 82 First Review Determinations at 15-16.

 83 Domestic Interested Parties’ Comments at 4. The World Polyester Fiber Report 2010 indicates that U.S.

consumption of all PSF, including nonsubject and subject PSF, declined *** percent between 2005 and 2009, from

*** pounds to *** pounds. CR at I-16; PR at I-14.

 84 CR at I-16-17; PR at I-14; Domestic Interested Parties’ Comments at 5.

 85 See CR at I-13-14; PR at I-11.

 86 CR/PR at Table I-4, Appendix C.

 87 CR/PR at Tables I-3-4.

 88 CR/PR at Table I-3.

 89 CR/PR at Table I-3 n.1.

14
product.90 All types of certain PSF are utilized in the same end use applications, primarily as stuffing for

furniture, pillows, and other bedding.91 There is nothing on the record of these reviews that contradicts

the Commission’s finding in the original investigations and first five-year reviews that purchasers blend

different types of PSF to achieve desired product characteristics at a given price point.92

Based on the record of these reviews, we find that conditions of competition in the certain PSF

market are not likely to change significantly in the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, in these

reviews, we find that current conditions of competition provide us with a reasonable basis on which to

assess the likely effects of revocation of the orders in the reasonably foreseeable future.

C. Likely Volume

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders are revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume

of imports would be significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the

United States.93 In doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including

four enumerated factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production

capacity in the exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases

in inventories; (3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries

other than the United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the

foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to

produce other products.94

In the original investigations, the Commission found that subject imports increased significantly

between 1997 and 1999, with subject import volume increasing *** percent to *** thousand pounds,

subject import shipment volume increasing *** percent to *** thousand pounds, and subject import

market share increasing from *** percent in 1997 to *** percent in 1999.95 Although domestic industry

shipments increased *** percent over the same period, despite an *** percent dip in 1998, domestic

industry market share declined from *** percent in 1997 to *** percent in 1999.96 

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission found that cumulated subject import volume

increased from 363.1 million pounds in 2000 to 371.1 million pounds in 2001 before declining to 282.2

million pounds in 2004, while subject imports as a share of apparent U.S. consumption declined from

42.1 percent in 2000 to 26.6 percent in 2004.97 Citing the Korean and Taiwan industries’ substantial and

growing excess capacity, the rapidly expanding Chinese PSF industry, and third country barriers, the

Commission found that subject foreign producers in Korea and Taiwan would likely seek to fill their

excess capacity with significantly increased exports to the United States if the orders were to be

 90 First Review Determinations at 16.

 91 See CR at I-8; PR at I-8.

 92 Original Determinations at 15; First Review Determinations at 16. The domestic interested parties maintain

that PSF, whether domestic or imported, is essentially fungible and sold primarily on the basis of price. Domestic

Interested Parties’ Comments at 4. 

 93 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 94 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 95 Confidential Original Determinations at 23-24. Subject import volume increased from *** thousand pounds in

1997 to *** thousand pounds in 1999. Subject import shipment volume increased *** percent from *** thousand

pounds in 1997 to *** thousand pounds in 1999.

 96 Confidential Original Determinations at 24. Domestic industry shipments declined from *** thousand pounds

in 1997 to 465,182 thousand pounds in 1998, before increasing to 525,092 thousand pounds in 1999.

 97 First Review Determinations at 24.

15
revoked.98 Accordingly, the Commission concluded that subject import volume would likely be

significant after revocation.99

In these reviews, cumulated subject import volume declined overall during the 2005-2010 period

but remained at significant levels. Cumulated subject imports declined from 238,971 pounds in 2005 to

207,336 pounds in 2006, increased to 256,864 pounds in 2007, declined to 206,165 pounds in 2008 and

150,495 pounds in 2009, and then increased to 166,459 pounds in 2010, a level 30.3 percent lower than in

2005.100 Cumulated subject imports accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2010,

compared with 26.6 percent in 2004 and 37.1 percent in 1999.101 The continuous, significant presence of

cumulated subject imports in the U.S. market even under the discipline of the orders suggests that subject

foreign producers remain interested in serving U.S. customers and capable of leveraging their ongoing

relationships with such customers to rapidly increase their penetration of the U.S. market if the orders

were to be revoked. 

The limited information on the record of these reviews indicates that subject foreign producers in

Korea and Taiwan possess significant excess capacity and that subject foreign producers in Taiwan are

export oriented to a significant degree.102 On a cumulated basis, subject foreign producers in Korea and

Taiwan possessed excess capacity of 949,514 pounds in 2010, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption that year.103 If the orders were to be revoked, subject foreign producers in Korea and

Taiwan would likely seek to boost their rates of capacity utilization by using their excess capacity to

increase production and exports to the United States. 

Based on the information available, the two largest Korean producers of certain PSF, Huvis and

Woongjin, possessed an annual production capacity of 1,341,279 pounds during the 2005-2010 period,

while their production fluctuated within a narrow band from a low of 1,050,966 pounds in 2008 to a high

of 1,181,159 pounds in 2007.104 In 2010, these two Korean producers produced 1,154,070 pounds of PSF

for a capacity utilization rate of 86.0 percent, leaving them with excess capacity of 187,209 pounds.105

The information available also indicates that Taiwan industry annual production capacity was

2,000,000 pounds throughout the period, while production declined from 1,613,516 pounds in 2005 to

1,048,647 pounds in 2008 before increasing to 1,237,695 pounds in 2010.106 The Taiwan industry’s rate

of capacity utilization was 61.9 percent in 2010, resulting in excess capacity of 762,305 pounds.107 The

Taiwan industry’s exports as a share of production ranged from 65.7 to 74.9 percent during the 2005-

2010 period and was 69.3 percent in 2010.108 

Third country trade barriers also would likely encourage subject foreign producers in Korea and

Taiwan to significantly increase exports to the United States after revocation. According to the

information available, PSF from Korea is subject to antidumping duty measures in Japan, Mexico, 

 98 See First Review Determinations at 24-26. 

 99 First Review Determinations at 27.

 100 CR/PR at Table I-3.

 101 CR/PR at Table I-4, Appendix C.

 102 The Commission collected no information on either subject import inventories or the potential for product

shifting due to the absence of any respondent interested party response to the Commission’s notice of institution of

these reviews. See 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B). In the first reviews, the Commission found that a limited number of

producers in Korea and Taiwan may have the ability to increase their certain PSF capacity by shifting production

from nonsubject PSF products. First Review Determinations at 25 n.174.

 103 CR/PR at Table I-4.

 104 CR/PR at Table I-5.

 105 CR/PR at Table I-5.

 106 CR/PR at Table I-6.

 107 CR/PR at Table I-6.

 108 CR/PR at Table I-6.

16
Pakistan, and Turkey, while PSF from Taiwan is subject to antidumping duty measures in Indonesia,

Japan, and Turkey.109 

For all these reasons, we conclude, based on the facts available,110 that cumulated subject import

volume, both in absolute terms and relative to production and consumption in the United States, would

likely be significant and increase significantly absent the restraining effect of the antidumping duty

orders.

D. Likely Price Effects

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if an antidumping duty order is revoked,

the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject

imports as compared to the domestic like product and whether the subject imports are likely to enter the

United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the

price of the domestic like product.111

In the original investigations, the Commission found that significant volumes of subject imports

undersold the domestic like product and significantly contributed to the depression of prices for the

domestic like product. The Commission observed that domestic producers lost sales and market share in

1997 and 1998 as their prices remained relatively steady.112 They only regained lost market share in 1999

when their prices dropped.113 The Commission concluded that subject imports had contributed

significantly to those trends by underselling the domestic like product in 162 of 168 quarterly

comparisons, or 96.4 percent of the time, at margins ranging from 1.9 percent to 78.2 percent.114 In

rejecting respondents’ arguments that subject import competition was attenuated, the Commission found

that subject import volume was too great to serve primarily niche markets, particularly when respondents

had failed to identify a single market exclusively served by subject imports, and that most importers and

purchasers reported that conjugate and regenerated fiber were interchangeable with other types of PSF.115

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission found that the likely significant increase in subject

import volume after revocation would likely be accompanied by significant underselling and significant

adverse price effects.116 The Commission based this finding in part on the substantial degree of

substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product as well as the importance of price

in the PSF market.117 The Commission also relied on evidence that even with the orders in place, subject

imports undersold the domestic like product in 153 of 275 quarterly comparisons, at margins ranging

from 0.3 to 29.9 percent.118 Thus, subject foreign producers would likely adopt their underselling strategy

that existed prior to imposition of the orders in order to increase their penetration of the U.S. market

rapidly.119 The Commission also found that the preponderance of spot sales and short term contracts

 109 CR at I-20; Domestic Interested Parties’ Comments at 10-11.

 110 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a).

 111 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering

the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely on

circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” SAA

at 886.

 112 Original Determinations at 17.

 113 Original Determinations at 17.

 114 Original Determinations at 17-18.

 115 Original Determinations at 18.

 116 First Review Determinations at 27.

 117 First Review Determinations at 27-28.

 118 First Review Determinations at 28.

 119 First Review Determinations at 28-29.

17
would enable purchasers to switch to subject imports quickly, forcing domestic producers to either lower

their prices or lose market share.120 

 There is no new product-specific pricing information on the record of these reviews. In the

absence of any new evidence to the contrary on the record of these reviews, we adopt our finding from

the first five-year reviews that price is an important factor to purchasers choosing among suppliers.121 In

light of this, as well as the substantial degree of substitutability between subject imports and the domestic

like product, we find it likely that subject foreign producers would resume their pattern of underselling

from the original investigations if the orders were revoked as a means of increasing their market share. In

response, domestic producers would have to either reduce their prices or relinquish market share. 

Accordingly, we find that, if the orders were revoked, the likely significant increase in subject import

volume at prices that would likely undersell the domestic like product would likely have significant

adverse price effects on the domestic industry.

E. Likely Impact122

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping duty orders

under review were revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are

likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to the

following: (1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments,

and utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages,

growth, ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing

development and production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more

advanced version of the domestic like product.123 All relevant economic factors are to be considered

within the context of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

industry.124 As instructed by the statute, we have considered the extent to which any improvement in the

state of the domestic industry is related to the orders at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to

material injury if the orders were revoked.

In the original investigations, the Commission determined that the domestic industry was

materially injured by reason of subject imports based on the domestic industry’s declining performance

over the period examined in the investigations.125 Though apparent U.S. consumption increased in each

year of the period examined, domestic industry market share declined along with the average unit value of

 120 First Review Determinations at 28-29.

 121 First Review Determinations at 27. The domestic interested parties maintain that PSF, whether domestic or

imported, is essentially fungible and sold primarily on the basis of price. Domestic Interested Parties’ Comments at

4.

 122 Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin of

dumping” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the

“magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as “the dumping margin

or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C.

§ 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. In the final results of its expedited sunset review of the antidumping duty

orders, Commerce determined that revocation of the order on PSF from Korea would likely result in the continuation

or recurrence of dumping at a weighted-average margin of 7.91 percent for Sam Young Synthetics Co. and 7.91

percent for all other Korean producers. CR/PR at Table I-1. Commerce determined that revocation of the order on

PSF from Taiwan would likely result in the continuation or recurrence of dumping at a weighted-average margin of

11.50 percent for Far Eastern Corp., 3.79 percent for Nan Ya Plastics Corp., Ltd., and 7.31 percent for all other

Taiwanese producers. Id.

 123 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 124 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 125 Original Determinations at 19.

18
domestic shipments.126 The declining unit value of domestic shipments resulted in declining domestic

industry gross profits, operating income, and operating margins, notwithstanding a decline in the cost of

goods sold and an increase in net sales quantity.127

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission found that material injury would likely continue or

recur if the antidumping orders were to be revoked. It based this finding on the vulnerable condition of

the domestic industry, which lost $75 million during the period examined in the reviews; the likely

significant increase in subject import volume after revocation; and the likelihood of significant subject

import underselling and adverse price effects after revocation.128

In these reviews, the record information on the domestic industry’s condition is limited. In 2010,

the domestic industry’s capacity was *** pounds, its output was *** pounds, and its rate of capacity

utilization was *** percent.129 The domestic industry’s U.S. shipments were *** pounds, accounting for

*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption; its net sales value was $***; and its operating income was

$***, equivalent to *** percent of net sales.130 Although the domestic industry’s output, rate of capacity

utilization, U.S. shipments, net sales value, and market share in 2010 were significantly lower than in any

other period examined, the industry’s operating income and operating income margin were higher than in

any full year examined in the first reviews.131 The limited evidence in these expedited reviews is

insufficient for us to make a finding on whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to the continuation or

recurrence of material injury in the event of revocation of the order.132 

 Based on the record in these reviews, we find that the likely volume and price effects of the

subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the industry’s production, sales, and

revenue levels and would likely have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability and

employment levels as well as its ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital

investments. We find that, given the general substitutability of certain PSF from different sources, a

significant portion of the expected increase in subject imports would be at the expense of the domestic

industry, particularly given the likelihood of subject import underselling and adverse price effects. 

Accordingly, we conclude that, if the antidumping duty orders on certain PSF from Korea and Taiwan

were revoked, subject imports would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic

industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on

certain PSF from Korea and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

 126 Original Determinations at 19.

 127 Original Determinations at 19; see also Confidential Original Determinations at 28 (finding that the domestic

industry’s ratio of operating income to sales dropped from *** percent in 1997 to *** percent in 1998 and ***

percent in 1999).

 128 First Review Determinations at 30-31.

 129 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 130 CR/PR at Tables I-2, 4.

 131 See CR/PR at Table I-2, Appendix C. 

 132 Commissioner Pinkert notes with emphasis that the volume of U.S. commercial shipments by the domestic

industry in 2010 was considerably lower than the volumes attained during the periods examined in the original

investigations and the first five-year reviews. CR/PR at Tables I-1 and I-2. In addition, the average operating

income margin in 2010 of those members of the domestic industry that provided information was only *** percent. 

CR/PR at Table I-2; Domestic Industry’s Comments at 14. 

19

INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

Background

On March 1, 2011, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”),1

 as

amended, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) gave notice that it had instituted

five-year reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain polyester

staple fiber (“PSF”) from Korea and Taiwan would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of

material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.2 3

 On June 6, 2011, the Commission determined that

the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution was adequate.4

 The Commission

also determined that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate.5

 The Commission

found no other circumstances that would warrant conducting full reviews.6

 Accordingly, the Commission

determined that it would conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.7

 The

Commission is tentatively scheduled to vote on these reviews on August 30, 2011, and to notify

Commerce of its determination on September 13, 2011. Information relating to the background of the

reviews is presented in the tabulation below.

 1 19 U.S.C. §1675(c). 

 2

 All interested parties were requested to respond to the notice by submitting information requested by the

Commission. 76 FR 11268, March 1, 2011. Copies of the Commission’s Federal Register notices are presented in

app. A. 

 3

 In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a

notice of initiation of the five-year review of the subject antidumping duty orders concurrently with the

Commission’s notice of institution. 76 FR 11202, March 1, 2011. 

 4

 The Commission received a joint response filed on behalf of domestic interested parties DAK

Americas LLC (“DAK Americas”), Palmetto Synthetics LLC (“Palmetto Synthetics”), U.S. Fibers, and Wellman

Plastics Recycling LLC (“Wellman Plastics”), which are domestic producers of PSF (“the domestic interested

parties”).

 5

 The Commission received no responses to its notice of institution from respondent interested parties.

 6

 A copy of the Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy is presented in app. B. 

 7

 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3). See the Commission’s web site (http://www.usitc.gov) for Commissioner votes on

whether to conduct an expedited or full review. 

I-1
Effective date Action Federal Register citation

May 25, 2000 Commerce’s original antidumping duty order issued 65 FR 33807

April 3, 2006 Commerce’s continuation of antidumping duty orders after

first reviews

71 FR 16558

March 1, 2011 Commission’s institution of second reviews 76 FR 11268

June 6, 2011 Commission’s decision to conduct expedited second reviews Not applicable

June 28, 2011 Commission’s scheduling of the expedited second reviews 76 FR 37830

July 1, 2011 Commerce’s final results of expedited second reviews 76 FR 38612

August 30, 2011 Date of the Commission’s vote Not applicable

September 13, 2011 Commission’s determination to Commerce Not applicable

Source: Cited Federal Register notices. 

THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS

On April 2, 1999, a petition was filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an

industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports of PSF sold at less than fair

value (“LTFV”) from Korea and Taiwan.8

 On May 17, 2000, the Commission determined that an

industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports from Korea and Taiwan of

certain subject PSF sold at LTFV.9

 The Commission determined that low-melt fiber was a separate like

product, and further determined that subject imports of the product neither materially injured, nor

threatened to materially injure an industry in the United States.10 The Commission also found two

domestic industries corresponding to low-melt fiber and conventional PSF (all subject PSF except for

low-melt fiber).11

 8 The petition was filed by counsel for E.I. Dupont de Nemours, Inc. (“DuPont”); Nan Ya Plastics Corp.,

America (originally a petitioner in the Korea investigation only); Arteva Specialties S.a.r.l., d/b/a KoSa; Wellman,

Inc.; and Intercontinental Polymers, Inc. In a letter dated May 4, 1999, DuPont withdrew its support for the Taiwan

case before the preliminary determination and Nan Ya withdrew its support for the Korea case, and thus was

removed as a petitioner. 

 9 65 FR 33576, May 24, 2000.

 10 Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Final), USITC

Publication 3300, May 2000, pp. 3 and 7.

 11 Chairman Bragg determined that there was one domestic like product, and one domestic industry. 

I-2
THE FIRST FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS

On March 31, 2005, the Commission instituted the first sunset reviews of the antidumping duty

order on PSF from Korea and Taiwan.12 On July 5, 2005, the Commission determined that it would

conduct full reviews. On August 5, 2005, Commerce determined that revocation of the antidumping duty

orders on PSF from Korea and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.13 On March 20, 2006, the

Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on PSF from Korea and Taiwan

would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States

within a reasonably foreseeable time.14 On April 3, 2006, Commerce published its notice of continuation

of the antidumping duty orders.15

RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

On June 23, 2006, a petition was filed with the Commission and Commerce by DAK Americas,

Nan Ya Plastics, and Wellman, alleging that LTFV imports of PSF from China were materially injuring

or threatening to materially injure the domestic industry. On April 1, 2007, Commerce determined that

PSF from China was being or was likely to be sold in the United States at LTFV. On May 24, 2007, the

Commission determined that the U.S. industry was materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of PSF

from China.16 On June 1, 2007, Commerce issued the antidumping duty order on PSF from China.17

COMMERCE’S ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS

Commerce has conducted ten administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on PSF

from Korea and five administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on PSF from Taiwan, as shown

in the tabulation on the following page.

 12 70 FR 16522.

 13 70 FR 45368.

 14 71 FR 14721, March 23, 2006.

 15 71 FR 16558.

 16 72 FR 30394, May 31, 2007.

 17 72 FR 30545.

I-3
Period of review Date results published Margin (percent)

Korea

November 8, 1999 to 

April 30, 2001

October 15, 2002

(67 FR 63616)

Daeyang Industrial Co., Ltd.......................................... 1.39

Estal Industry Co., Ltd................................................... 0.20

Huvis Corp..................................................................... 3.37

Keon Baek Co., Ltd...................................................... 0.311

Mijung Ind. Co., Ltd........................................................ 1.00

Sam Young Synthetics Co., Ltd...................................... 0.75

Sunglim Co., Ltd............................................................. 0.61

May 1, 2001 to

April 30, 2002

October 15, 2003

(68 FR 59366)

East Young Co., Ltd....................................................... 4.07

Huvis Corp..................................................................... 0.211

May 1, 2002 to 

April 30, 2003

October 18, 2004

(68 FR 61343)

Huvis Corp..................................................................... 1.54

Keon Baek Co., Ltd....................................................... 0.072

Saehan Industries, Inc................................................... 4.19

May 1, 2002 to

April 30, 2003

November 22, 2004

(69 FR 67891) Saehan Industries, Inc................................................... 2.133

May 1, 2003 to

April 30, 2004

December 12, 2005

(70 FR 73436) Huvis Corp...................................................................... 5.87

May 1, 2004 to

April 30, 2005

October 4, 2006

(71 FA 58581) Huvis Corp...................................................................... 4.65

May 1, 2005 to

April 30, 2006

December 10, 2007

(72 FR 69663)

Dongwoo Industry Co., Ltd........................................... 48.14

Huvis Corp...................................................................... 2.51

May 1, 2006 to

April 30, 2007

December 5, 2008

(73 FR 74144) Huvis Corp...................................................................... 2.92

May 1, 2007 to

April 30, 2008

December 10, 2009

(74 FR 65517) Huvis Corp...................................................................... 1.50

May 1, 2008 to

April 30, 2009

October 19, 2010

(75 FR 64252) Huvis Corp...................................................................... 0.94

Taiwan

May 1, 2004 to

April 30, 2005

October 13, 2006

(71 FR 60476) Far Eastern Textile Limited............................................. 4.05

May 1, 2005 to

April 30, 2006

December 7, 2007

(72 FR 69193) Far Eastern Textile Limited............................................ 0.301

May 1, 2006 to

April 30, 2007

October 21, 2008

(73 FR 62477) Far Eastern Textile Limited............................................ 1.744

May 1, 2007 to

April 30, 2008

April 22, 2009

(74 FR 18348) Far Eastern Textile Limited............................................. 1.97

May 1, 2008 to

April 30, 2009

July 27, 2010

(75 FR 43921) Far Eastern Textile Limited............................................. 2.43

 1 De minimis.

 2

 As a result of this administrative review, Commerce revoked application of the antidumping duty order to Keon Baek, 69 FR

61341, October 18, 2004.

 3

 Commerce amended its final result of the administrative review published October 18, 2004, to correct ministerial errors, 69

FR 67891, November 22, 2004.

 3

 Commerce amended its final result of the administrative review October 21, 2008, to correct ministerial errors, 73 FR 78722,

December 23, 2008.

I-4
COMMERCE’S CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES REVIEWS

Commerce has conducted two changed circumstances reviews of the antidumping duty order on

PSF from Korea. On January 9, 2001, Commerce initiated a changed circumstances review to examine

the formation of Huvis Corp. (“Huvis”) through a joint venture merger of Samyang Corp. (“Samyang”)

and SK Chemicals Co.,Ltd. (“SK Chemicals”).18 On June 6, 2001, Commerce determined that Huvis was

not the successor-in-interest to either Samyang or SK Chemicals, nor to Samyang and SK Chemicals

jointly, making Huvis subject to the “all others” rate calculated in the antidumping duty investigation.19

On June 16, 2008, Commerce initiated a changed circumstances review to examine the purchase of 50

percent of Saehan’s shares by Woongjin, and subsequent name change.20 On August 20, 2008,

Commerce determined that Woongjin is the successor-in-interest to Saehan Industries Inc. (“Saehan”),

and should be accorded the same treatment with regard to the order on PSF.21

Commerce has conducted one changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on

PSF from Taiwan. On January 26, 2010, Commerce initiated a changed circumstances review to examine

the name change of Far Eastern Textile Limited to Far Eastern New Century Corp.22 On July 8, 2010,

Commerce determined that Far Eastern New Century Corp. is the successor-in-interest to Far Eastern

Textile Limited, and should be accorded the same treatment with the regard to the order on PSF.23 

COMMERCE’S FINAL RESULTS OF EXPEDITED SUNSET REVIEWS

On July 1, 2011, Commerce published in the Federal Register its finding that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders on polyester staple fiber from Korea and Taiwan would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping.24 The weighted-average dumping margins (in percent ad

valorem), as reported by Commerce, for the original investigations, the full first five-year reviews, and

the expedited second five-year reviews, are presented in the table I-1.

 18 66 FR 1642, January 9, 2001.

 19 66 FR 30411.

 20 73 FR 33989.

 21 73 FR 49168.

 22 75 FR 4044.

 23 75 FR 39208.

 24 76 FR 38612.

I-5
Table I-1

PSF: Weighted-average dumping margins, as reported by Commerce, for the original

investigations, the first five-year reviews, and the second five-year reviews, by firm

Firm

Original1 2 First reviews

Second

reviews

Margin (percent)

Korea

Samyang Corporation de minimis -- --

Sam Young Synthetics Co. 7.91 7.91 7.91

Geum Poong Corporation de minimis -- --

Korea-wide 7.91 7.91 7.91

Taiwan

Far Eastern Corporation 9.51 11.50 11.50

Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Ltd. 5.77 3.79 3.79

Taiwan-wide 7.53 7.31 7.31

 1 With regard to Korea, an appeal was filed with the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) by the petitioners and

respondents, challenging Commerce’s final determination. The challenge related to Commerce’s method for

calculating Geum Poong’s constructed value profit rates. Following two remand decisions by the CIT, and

changes to profit calculations by Commerce in response, the CIT affirmed Commerce’s Final Results of

Redetermination on August 22, 2002. Commerce appealed this decision. On October 9, 2003, the CIT’s decision

was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 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.

 2

 With regard to Taiwan, Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan, 65 FR 24678, April 27, 2000.

Source: Various Federal Register notices.

I-6
THE PRODUCT

Scope 

 Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as follows:

For purposes of the order, the product covered is certain PSF (“PSF”). PSF is defined

as synthetic stable 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 under 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 PSFs 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 bicomponent fiber with an outer sheath that melts at significantly lower temperature than

its inner core. The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable in the

HTSUS at subheading 5503.20.00.45 and 5503.20.00.65. 

The HTS subheading is provided for convenience and for Customs purposes, but Commerce’s written

description of the merchandise is dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage.

Tariff Treatment

Certain PSF is imported under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS)

subheading 5503.20.00 (statistical reporting numbers 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065) and enters the

United States at a column 1-general duty tariff rate of 4.3 percent ad valorem for imports from countries

with normal trade relations, including Korea and Taiwan.25 The column 1-general tariff rate at the time of

the first review was 4.3 percent ad valorem and at the time of the original investigation was 4.5 percent

ad valorem. 

Subsequent to the original investigations, the existing statistical reporting numbers under

subheading 5503.20.00 of the HTS were restructured in July 2001 to provide separately for low-melt 

PSF, as follows: 5503.20.0020 became 5503.20.0025; 5503.20.0040 became 5503.20.0045; 

5503.20.0060 became 5503.20.0065; and a new provision was created for imports of low-melt PSF,

statistical reporting number 5503.20.0015.26

 25 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. 

 26 The existing provisions were renumbered to reflect the reduced product scope; a portion of the goods from

each one fall in this new product category. Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea, 69 FR 67891, November 22, 2004. 

I-7
Physical Characteristics and End-Use Applications27

PSF is a man-made fiber that is similar in appearance to cotton or wool fiber when baled. Certain

PSF is known in the industry as “fiber for fill,” as it is primarily used as polyester fiberfill. Certain PSF is

generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and

furniture.28 PSF is also used on a more limited basis in the production of ***.29 Certain PSF has physical

characteristics that distinguish it from other polyester staple fibers (such as carpet fiber and fiber for

spinning), including the denier of the fiber, the length of the fiber, and in some cases the finish and

“crimp” of the fiber. Most synthetic fiber is sold by quantity based on the denier of the fiber.

Because certain PSF is principally used as fiberfill, it is seldom directly visible. Therefore, the

appearance of the product is generally less important than the performance of the fiber to customers. 

However, the appearance of certain PSF directly affects the appearance and perceived value of many endproducts, such as mattresses, comforters, cushions, pillows, and furniture with light-color upholstery.

Certain PSF used for fill can be produced in many variations for purposes of quality

enhancement. For example, the subject fiber may be crimped or conjugate, giving the fiber “loft” for

stuffing purposes. It may also be coated with a finish (usually silicone or oil-based), making the fiber

smoother to the touch for certain high-end uses.30 The subject fiber may vary in shape and may be hollow

or solid, depending on both the preference of the manufacturer and the end use of the fiber. 

Raw materials used in the production of certain PSF may also vary. Staple fiber can be made by

reacting ethylene glycol with either terephthalic acid or its methyl ester; if so produced, it is termed virgin

PSF. Staple fiber may also be made from recycled polyester, using either consumer waste, such as

polyethylene terephthalate (“PET”) bottles, or industrial waste, such as polyester chips or spun tow. Fiber

made in this way is known as regenerated, or recycled, fiber. Some producers of the subject fiber also

manufacture a blend of virgin and recycled/regenerated materials by introducing polyester chips into the

virgin production line. Finally, PSF may be in the form of a low-melt fiber. This is a bi-component fiber

with an outer sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner polyester core, for

purposes of thermal bonding, and is not included within the scope of the orders under review.31

 27 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in the original

investigations: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Final),

USITC Publication 3300, May 2000, pp. I-2-I-9, and the first review of these investigations, Certain Polyester

Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Review), pp. I-12-I-19. 

 28 Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 70 FR 45368, August 5, 2005.

 29 Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Review), USITC

Publication 3843, March 2006, p. I-13. Staff field trip report, Wellman, November 4, 2005.

 30 According to industry testimony given at the hearing held in connection with Certain Polyester Staple Fiber

from Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Review), a silicone finish is preferred for certain end uses

such as pillows. When rubbed, fiber with a silicone finish will slide, lending the product a slightly slick feeling.

USITC, Hearing transcript, January 17, 2006, p. 156 (Katz). 

 31 Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 70 FR 45368, August 5, 2005. 

I-8
Manufacturing Processes32

Manufacturing of certain PSF may be divided into two discrete stages. The first stage of the 

process is polymer formation, a process that can vary depending on whether virgin (unprocessed

chemicals) or recycled materials are being used. Polymer formation also varies, depending on whether

conjugate fiber33 or low-melt fiber is being produced. The second stage of the process, which is common

to all certain PSF (including conjugate and regenerated fiber) is fiber formation, including stretching,

cutting, and baling.

The manufacture of certain PSF from virgin materials begins by reacting ethylene glycol with

either terephthalic acid or its methyl ester in the presence of an antimony catalyst. The reaction is carried

out at a high temperature and in a vacuum to achieve the high molecular weights needed to form useful

fiber. The mix is then sent through an esterification process before it is polymerized. Esterification is the

chemical process of combining an acid with an alcohol to form an ester. If a virgin or recycled blend is to

be produced, the recycled material (usually in the form of polyester chips) is introduced at the

esterification stage. 

After polymerization, the solid, molten plastic, which has a consistency similar to cold honey,

must be heated and liquefied before it can be extruded. The liquid fiber-forming polymers are then

extruded through tiny holes of a spinneret, a device similar in principle to a showerhead, to form

continuous filaments of semi-solid polymer. The denier of the fiber is controlled by the size of the holes

on the spinneret. After extrusion, the semi-solid fibers are blasted with cold air to form solid fibers. This

process is known as continuous polymerization.

The manufacture of regenerated34 certain PSF begins with the processing of the recycled

materials. As reported in the original investigations and the first five-year reviews, regenerated certain

PSF inputs can consist of a variety of different types of materials including: virgin first quality chip,

virgin off-spec chip, post industrial (regenerated) pellet waste, post industrial (regenerated) film waste,

post consumer bottles, post consumer bottle flake and miscellaneous post industrial (regenerated) waste. 

Depending on the materials used, the recycled product is cleaned and either chipped or pelletized before

being sent to the extruder. The recycled material is then melted to form molten polymers and sent

through the spinneret to form continuous filaments of semi-solid polymer. As with fiber from virgin

materials, the polymer is then blasted with cold air to form solid fiber.35

The second stage of production is common to fibers made from either virgin or recycled

materials. The solid fiber is coated for the first time with an oil finish, usually only for internal use to

facilitate further processing. The spun tow, as it is now known, is collected into a can to be stretched. 

The spun tow is sent over a creel and a series of “draw wheels” in order to orient the fiber molecules and

strengthen the tow. Next, the tow is sent through a crimping machine, which gives the fiber tow a twodimensional, saw-tooth shape. The tow is then sent through an oven to heat-set the crimp. A second

finish (usually silicone or some type of oil-based finish) may be added during this stage of the process,

 32 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in the original

investigations: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Final),

USITC Publication 3300, May 2000, pp. I-3-I-9, and the first review of these investigations, Certain Polyester

Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Review), USITC Publication 3843, March

2006, pp. I-12-I-19. 

 33 Conjugate fiber is a two-component fiber with the ability to crimp, (to become wavy) when exposed to hot or

hot/wet treatment, which causes differential shrinkage. Resource, Hoechst Celanese, Dictionary of Fiber & Textile

Technology, 1990, p. 33.

 34 “Regenerated certain PSF” refers to both regenerated and recycled PSF unless otherwise noted.

 35 Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Review), USITC

Publication 3843, March 2006, p. I-16. Staff field trip report, Wellman, November 4, 2005.

I-9
either before the fiber tow is crimped and heat-set or directly after, depending on the preference of the

manufacturer. Finally, the fiber tow is cut to length and baled.36

The manufacturing processes for nonsubject PSF are similar to those for certain PSF. Nonsubject

PSF includes PSF of less than 3 denier, PSF for carpeting, and low-melt PSF, in addition to other

products.37 These nonsubject forms of PSF may be manufactured on the same equipment and machinery

used in the production of certain PSF.38 The production of PSF of less than 3 denier, commonly referred

to as fine denier PSF, is controlled by the size of the holes on the spinneret. By using a spinneret with

smaller holes, a production line can switch from heavier gauge PSF to finer denier; the other steps of the

manufacturing process remain generally the same.39 PSF for carpeting is a heavier denier than certain

PSF and is produced by using a spinneret with larger holes. To achieve carpet fibers with luster, a

slightly different mix of raw materials is used.40

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

During the original investigations, the Commission considered whether conjugate fiber,

regenerated fiber, and low-melt fiber were separate like products. The Commission determined that

conjugate fiber and regenerated fiber were not separate like products. However, the Commission

determined that low-melt fiber was a separate like product and made negative injury and threat

determinations with respect to that product.41 The domestic interested parties agree with the

Commission’s definition of the domestic like product in the original investigations and first five-year

reviews.42

Conjugate Fiber

As defined in the original investigations, conjugate fiber is “a hollow, siliconized fiber with a

spiral configuration imparted by a chemical process that bonds two different polyester polymers of

different viscosities, causing one to shrink to produce spiral-shaped crimps. Conjugate fiber is often used

for its superior loft, a quality that is imparted by the crimp or curl of the fiber. After the fiber is extruded,

the stretching, cutting, and baling of the fiber are identical to other types of PSF.

Regenerated Fiber

Regenerated fiber, as defined in the original investigations, is “polyester staple fiber produced

primarily from waste polyester fibers but may also include other polyester waste products such as nonfiber polyester solids. It generally has inconsistent physical properties, such as irregular color, denier,

staple length, and crimp count. It is generally sold without specifications, guarantees, or warranties of

 36 Ibid. 

 37 Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 70 FR 45368, August 5, 2005. 

 38 Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Review), USITC

Publication 3843, March 2006, pp. I-17. 

 39 Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Final), USITC

Publication 3300, May 2000, p. I-3. 

 40 USITC, Hearing transcript, January 17, 2006, p. 298 (Stein). 

 41 Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Final), USITC

Publication 3300, May 2000, pp. 3 and 7. 

 42 ***. Written submission to the USITC, Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos.

731-TA-825 and 826 (Second Review), March 31, 2011, p. 20.

I-10
any kind.”43 Like virgin PSF, regenerated PSF is used as fiber for fill, usually in lower quality products. 

Regenerated fiber is occasionally blended with higher quality fiber, allowing end users to reduce their

costs, while at the same time offering a somewhat better product. Regenerated fiber is produced by the

same method as virgin PSF.

U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

During the original investigations, the Commission found that the following six U.S. firms

produced PSF: DuPont, Intercontinental Polymers,44 KoSa, Martin Color-Fi,45 Nan Ya USA, and

Wellman.46 At the time, DuPont,47 KoSa,48 and Wellman accounted for *** percent of domestic

production of PSF. Nan Ya USA was identified in the original investigations as a wholly owned

subsidiary of Nan Ya Plastics Corp., a producer of subject merchandise in Taiwan, and DuPont was

identified as an importer of subject merchandise from Korea.

The following six firms were identified as producers of PSF in the United States at the time of the

Commission’s full first five-year reviews: Color-Fi, DAK, Invista, Nan Ya USA, U.S. Fibers,49 United

Synthetics,50 and Wellman. The domestic interested parties participating in these expedited second fiveyear reviews indicated in their response to the Commission’s notice of institution that the following eight

firms are currently domestic producers of PSF: Color-Fi (Division of Formed Fiber Technology, Inc.);

DAK; Invista (currently operating as Auriga Polymers);51 Nan Ya Plastics Corp., America; Palmetto; U.S.

Fibers; United Synthetics; and Wellman.52

The domestic interested parties identified two related parties: Nan Ya Plastics Corp. America is a

wholly-owned subsidiary of Taiwanese producer Nan Ya Plastics Corp. and United Synthetics is related

to the Korean producer Korea Synthetics Fibers, Inc.

 43 Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Final), USITC

Publication 3300, May 2000, p. I-7.

 44 Filed for bankruptcy in October 2003, no longer produces PSF.

 45 Formed Fiber Technology, Inc. acquired Martin Color-Fi in 2003.

 46 Two additional firms (Image Industries and Freudenberg Texbond) were also identified as domestic producers

of PSF; however the Commission was unable to obtain information concerning these firms during the original

investigations. One U.S. producer not identified during the original investigations, Foss Manufacturing, was in

Chapter 11 bankruptcy during the second five-year reviews.

 47 In 2003 DuPont sold its textiles and interiors division Invista to Koch Industries. In 1999 DuPont and Alpek

entered a joint venture to create DuPont-Akra Polyester, LLC. By August 2001, DuPont had divested itself of the

joint venture and DAK Americas was created by the acquisition of select assets from DuPont. Between April and

July 2001, DAK Monomers and DAK Resins were also formed. In November 2004, DAK Fibers, DAK Monomers,

and DAK Resins, merged under one company – DAK Americas.

 48 Koch Industries acquired full ownership of subsidiary, KoSa, in 2001. In 2003 Koch Industries purchased

Invista from DuPont and merged its KoSa and Invista operations under the name Invista.

 49 Joined the industry after the original investigations. Importer, ***, purchased former *** and began

production of PSF in December 2004.

 50 Began production after the original investigations, in 2000.

 51 In April 2004, KoSa purchased certain assets from DuPont (principally DuPont’s nylon and spandex

operations) and combined these assets with KoSa’s polyester operations to form Invista. On March 1, 2011,

Invista’s PSF assets in Spartenburg, South Carolina were acquired by Indorama Venture Public Co., Limited (“IVL”)

and now operate under IVL’s new U.S. affiliate, Auriga Polymers. Domestic interested parties’ response to the

notice of institution, p. 14. 

 52 Wellman filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2008. Wellman’s Johnsonville facility that produces

PSF was subsequently acquired by a group of investors led by J.H. Whitney and is now part of Wellman Plastics

Recycling. Domestic interested parties’ response to the notice of institution, p. 14.

I-11
U.S. Capacity, Production, Capacity Utilization,

U.S. Commercial Shipments, and Financial Data

The four firms that responded to the notice of institution are estimated to represent *** of U.S.

production of PSF in 2010.53 Data reported by U.S. producers of PSF in these expedited second reviews

are presented in table I-2.54 Data reported by U.S. producers of PSF in the original investigations and the

full first reviews are presented in appendix C.55

Table I-2

PSF: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, capacity utilization, U.S. commercial shipments, and

financial data, 2010 

Item

2010

DAK

Americas Nan Ya PalmettoSynthetics

U.S.

Fibers

United

Synthetics

Wellman

Plastics Total

Capacity 

(1,000 pounds) *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Production 

(1,000 pounds) *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Capacity utilization

(percent) *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. commercial

shipments:

 Quantity 

 (1,000 pounds) *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value 

 (per pound) *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Net sales ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

COGS ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Gross profit or 

(loss) ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

SG&A expenses 

($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Operating income

or (loss) ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Domestic interested parties response to the Commission’s notice of institution, exh. 4 and exh. 9.

 53 Domestic interested parties’ response to the notice of institution, p. 12.

 54 There is no current pricing data available for the subject product.

 55 Appendix C presents Table I-1 from the first five-year reviews staff report which contains comparative data of

the U.S. market and industry from the original investigations and the first five-year reviews.

I-12
U.S. Imports

During the original investigations, the Commission identified 36 U.S. importers that imported the

subject product. Of these importers, 20 responded to the Commission questionnaires with usable data. 

During the full first five-year reviews, the Commission sent questionnaires to 35 firms believed to have

imported PSF, and received usable data from 17 firms.

In these expedited second five-year reviews, the domestic interested parties identified 30 firms

that are believed to be importing the subject product from Korea and Taiwan. Data regarding U.S.

imports of PSF, as reported by Commerce, are presented in table I-3. 

Table I-3

PSF: U.S. imports, by source, 2005–10

Item Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Korea 184,832 169,865 208,673 176,104 135,582 140,339

Taiwan 54,139 37,471 48,191 30,061 14,912 26,120

 Subtotal 238,971 207,336 256,864 206,165 150,495 166,459

Other sources1 310,713 359,395 322,798 414,885 340,850 381,235

 Total 549,684 566,730 579,662 621,050 491,344 547,694

Value ($1,000 dollars)

Korea 108,549 93,297 116,565 109,462 65,468 78,483

Taiwan 36,971 24,549 32,030 21,212 9,169 20,027

 Subtotal 145,521 117,847 148,595 130,674 74,636 98,510

Other sources1 197,078 215,249 187,322 257,435 172,308 230,215

 Total 342,599 333,096 335,917 388,109 246,944 328,724

Unit value (dollars per pound)

Korea $0.59 $0.55 $0.56 $0.62 $0.48 $0.56

Taiwan 0.68 0.66 0.66 0.71 0.61 0.77

 Average 0.61 0.57 0.58 0.63 0.50 0.59

Other sources1 0.63 0.60 0.58 0.62 0.51 0.60

 Average 0.62 0.59 0.58 0.62 0.50 0.60

 1

 The primary “other sources” during 2010 were China, India, Indonesia, and Thailand. 

Source: Official Commerce statistics. 

I-13
APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND U.S. MARKET SHARES

According to the World Polyester Fiber Report 2010, U.S. consumption of PSF ***.56 Domestic

interested parties reported that the decline in U.S. demand is due to: (1) U.S. manufacturers of home good

have decreased production because of increased imports of finished Chinese goods containing PSF; (2)

the recent downturn in the housing market; and (3) recent federal regulations on flame retardant home

textiles have lowered demand for certain PSF in these applications.57 Three top purchasers of PSF were

identified as ***.58

Table I-4 presents apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares in 2010.59 

Table I-4

PSF: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and U.S.

market shares, 2010 

Item 2010

Quantity (1,000 pounds)1

U.S. producers’ U.S.

 shipments ***

U.S. imports

 Korea 140,339

 Taiwan 26,120

 Subtotal 166,459

 All other sources1 381,235

 Total imports 547,694

Apparent U.S. consumption ***

Share of consumption (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S.

 shipments ***

U.S. imports

 Korea ***

 Taiwan ***

 Subtotal ***

 All other sources1 ***

 Total imports ***

 1 The primary “other sources” during 2010 were China, India, Indonesia, and Thailand. 

Source: Domestic interested parties response to the notice of institution, exh. 4 and exh. 9, and official Commerce statistics.

 56 Domestic interested parties’ response to the notice of institution, pp. 13-14.

 57 Domestic interested parties’ response to the notice of institution, p. 14.

 58 Domestic interested parties’ response to the notice of institution, p. 11.

 59 Appendix C presents Table I-1 from thefirst five-year reviews staff report which contains comparative data of

the U.S. market and industry from the original investigations and the first five-year reviews.

I-14
THE INDUSTRY IN KOREA

During the original investigations, the Commission identified five firms believed to have

produced the subject product in Korea: Daehan Synthetic Fiber Co., Ltd. (“Daehan”); Kohap, Ltd.;

Saehan; Samyang; and SK Chemicals. Additionally, a number of small, family-owned businesses

claimed to account for the bulk of regenerated fiber produced in Korea. In 2000, Samyang and SK

Chemicals merged their operations to form Huvis, which was reportedly the largest PSF producer in

Korea at that time.60 In the first five-year reviews, the domestic interested parties identified four firms

believed to produce the subject merchandise in Korea: Daehan, Huvis, Kohap, and Seahan. The

domestic parties also noted the existence of small firms producing regenerated PSF that had not been

identified. Two Korean producers, Huvis and Seahan, provided complete questionnaire responses in the

Commission’s full first reviews.

In these expedited second five-year reviews, the domestic interested parties indicated that,

according to the Korea Chemical Fibers Association, the two largest Korean producers of PSF today are

Huvis and Woongjin Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Woongjin”).61 62 Both Korean firms are producers of

conventional or virgin PSF. The domestic interested parties also noted that there are numerous producers

of regenerated PSF in Korea, and identified 16 current producers of PSF in Korea.63 No Korean

interested party responded to the notice of institution or otherwise participated in these second five-year

reviews.

The domestic interested parties provided capacity and production data for Huvis and Woongjin as

presented in table I-5.

 60 On June 6, 2001, Commerce determined that Huvis was not the successor-in-interest to either Samyang or SK

Chemicals.

 61 Domestic interested parties’ response to the notice of institution, p. 17.

 62 On August 20, 2008, Commerce determined that Woongjin is the successor-in-interest to Saehan.

 63 Identified firms are: Daeyang Industrial Co., Ltd.; Dongwoo Industry Co., Ltd.; East Young Co., Ltd.; Estal

Industrial Co., Ltd.; Geum Poong Corp. (excluded from order); Huvis; Ji Yeong Fiber, Inc.; Keon Baek Co., Ltd.;

Kohap Corp.; Korea Synthetic Fibers, Inc.; Mijung Ind. Co., Ltd. (excluded from order); Samheung Co., Ltd.; Sam

Young Synthetics, Ltd.; Sunglim Co., Ltd.; Taekwang Ind. Co., Ltd.; Woongjin. Domestic interested parties’

response to the notice of institution, exh. 7.

I-15
Table I-5.

PSF: Capacity, production, and capacity utilization for Huvis and Woongjin, 2005-2010

Item 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Capacity

 Huvis 873,022 873,022 873,022 873,022 873,022 873,022

 Woongjin 468,257 468,257 468,257 468,257 468,257 468,257

 Total 1,341,279 1,341,279 1,341,279 1,341,279 1,341,279 1,341,279

Total

production 1,134,670 1,122,077 1,181,159 1,050,966 1,105,492 1,154,070

Capacity

utilization

(percent) 84.6 83.7 88.1 78.4 82.4 86.0

Source: Korean Chemical Fibers Assocation and Taiwan Man Made Fibers Association, domestic interested parties’ response to

the notice of institution, p. 17.

THE INDUSTRY IN TAIWAN

During the original investigations, the Commission identified four firms believed to have

produced the subject product in Taiwan: Far Eastern Textile, Ltd.;64 Nan Ya Plastics Corp.; Tuntex

Distinct Corp.; and Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corp. The same four firms were identified as PSF

producers in Taiwan in the first five-year reviews but only Nan Ya Plastics Corp. and Shinkong Synthetic

Fibers Corp. provided the Commission with complete questionnaire responses during those reviews.

The domestic interested parties indicated in their response to the Commission’s notice of

institution in these second five-year reviews that these same four producers in Taiwan remain actively

engaged in the production and export of PSF.65 The domestic interested parties also indicated that there

are three additional producers of PSF in Taiwan: Chung Shing Textile Co., Ltd.; Tainin Spinning Co.,

Ltd.; and Tung Ho Spinning Weaving & Dyeing Co., Ltd. No Taiwan interested party responded to the

notice of institution or otherwise participated in these reviews.

The domestic interested parties provided Taiwan PSF industry data, as presented in table I-6.

 64 On July 8, 2010, Commerce determined that Far Eastern New Century Corp. is the successor-in-interest to Far

Eastern Textile Ltd.

 65 Domestic interested parties’ response to the notice of institution, p. 15.

I-16
Table I-6.

PSF: Taiwan industry’s capacity, production, capacity utilization, exports, and share of exports to

production, 2005-2010

Item 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Capacity

(1,000 pounds)

2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000

Production

(1,000 pounds) 1,613,516 1,350,631 1,213,064 1,048,647 1,189,999 1,237,695

Capacity

utilization

(percent) 80.7 67.5 60.7 52.4 59.5 61.9

Exports

(1,000 pounds) 1,172,997 1,011,338 796,513 719,403 855,773 858,315

Share of

exports to

production

(percent) 72.7 74.9 65.7 68.6 71.9 69.3

Source: Taiwan Man Made Fibers Association, USITC Pub. 3843, p. 25, domestic interested parties’ response to the notice of

institution, p. 17.

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

Subject PSF from Korea and Taiwan have been subject to import relief investigations in several

other countries. Mexico imposed antidumping duty measures on Korean PSF in August 1993. Japan

imposed antidumping duty measures on Korean and Taiwan PSF in July 2002.66 Turkey imposed

antidumping duty measures on Korean PSF in February 2000 and Taiwan PSF in July 2003. Pakistan

imposed antidumping duty measures on Korean PSF in February 2007 and Indonesia imposed

antidumping duty measures on Taiwan PSF in December 2010.

 66 Domestic interested parties’ response to the notice of institution, p. 20.

I-17

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

11268 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2011 / Notices 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 11–5–241, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 

20436. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–742] 

In the Matter of Certain Digital 

Televisions and Components Thereof; 

Notice of Commission Determination 

Not To Review an Initial Determination 

Granting a Motion To Terminate The 

Investigation in Its Entirety 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 7) of the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) 

granting the private parties’ motion to 

terminate the investigation in its 

entirety. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202– 

205–3152. Copies of the ID and all other 

nonconfidential documents filed in 

connection with this investigation are or 

will be available for inspection during 

official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 

p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone 202–205–2000. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that 

information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. General information 

concerning the Commission may also be 

obtained by accessing its Internet server 

(http://www.usitc.gov). The public 

record for this investigation may be 

viewed on the Commission’s electronic 

docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 18, 2010, the Commission 

instituted an investigation under section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 

U.S.C.1337, based on a complaint filed 

by LG Electronics, Inc. of Seoul, Korea 

(‘‘LG’’) alleging a violation of section 337 

in the importation, sale for importation, 

and sale within the United States after 

importation of certain digital televisions 

and components thereof by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent No. RE 37,070; U.S. Patent No. 

6,785,906; and U.S. Patent No. 

6,598,233. 75 FR 63857 (Oct. 18, 2010). 

Complainant LG named Vizio, Inc. of 

Irvine, California, AmTRAN Technology 

Co., Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan and 

AmTRAN Logistic, Inc. of Irvine, 

California as respondents. 

On January 18, 2011, the private 

parties filed a motion to terminate the 

investigation in its entirety by reason of 

a settlement pursuant to Commission 

Rules 210.21(a)(2) and (b). The movants 

state that they have entered into a 

settlement agreement and patent cross 

license agreements. The Commission 

investigative attorney supports the 

motion. 

On January 28, 2011, the ALJ issued 

an ID (Order No. 7) granting the motion. 

No party petitioned for review of the 

subject ID. The Commission has 

determined not to review the ID. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in 

section 210.42(h) of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42(h)). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 18, 2011. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Assistant. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4443 Filed 2–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–825 and 826 

(Second Review)] 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From 

Korea and Taiwan 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution five-year reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on certain polyester staple fiber from 

Korea and Taiwan. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on certain 

polyester staple fiber from Korea and 

Taiwan would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of 

the Act, interested parties are requested 

to respond to this notice by submitting 

the information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is March 31, 2011. Comments 

on the adequacy of responses may be 

filed with the Commission by May 16, 

2011. For further information 

concerning the conduct of these reviews 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207), as most recently amended at 74 FR 

2847 (January 16, 2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: March 1, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On May 25, 2000, the 

Department of Commerce issued 

antidumping duty orders on imports of 

certain polyester staple fiber from Korea 

and Taiwan (65 FR 33807). Following 

five-year reviews by Commerce and the 

Commission, effective April 3, 2006, 

Commerce issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty orders on imports of 

certain polyester staple fiber from Korea 

and Taiwan (71 FR 16558). The 

Commission is now conducting second 

five-year reviews to determine whether 

revocation of the orders would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury to the domestic industry 

within a reasonably foreseeable time. It 

will assess the adequacy of interested 

party responses to this notice of 

institution to determine whether to 

conduct full reviews or expedited 

reviews. The Commission’s 

determinations in any expedited 

reviews will be based on the facts 

available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to these reviews: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2011 / Notices 11269 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year reviews, as 

defined by the Department of 

Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Countries in these 

reviews are Korea and Taiwan. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determinations, the Commission found 

that there were two Domestic Like 

Products corresponding to (1) low-melt 

fiber and (2) conventional polyester 

staple fiber (all subject polyester staple 

fiber except for low-melt fiber). 

However, the Commission made a 

negative original determination with 

respect to low-melt fiber. One 

Commissioner defined the Domestic 

Like Product differently in the original 

determinations. In its full first five-year 

review determinations, the Commission 

defined the Domestic Like Product to be 

all certain conventional polyester staple 

fiber, coextensive with the scope of the 

reviews. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determinations, 

the Commission defined two Domestic 

Industries: (1) All domestic producers of 

low-melt fiber and (2) all domestic 

producers of conventional polyester 

staple fiber. However, the Commission 

made a negative determination with 

respect to low-melt fiber in the original 

investigations. One Commissioner 

defined the Domestic Industry 

differently in the original 

determinations. In its full first five-year 

review determinations, the Commission 

defined the Domestic Industry as all 

domestic producers of certain 

conventional polyester staple fiber, 

coextensive with the scope of the 

reviews. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the reviews. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official has advised that a five-year 

review is not considered the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the corresponding 

underlying original investigation for 

purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post 

employment statute for Federal 

employees, and Commission rule 

201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are not 

required to seek Commission approval 

to appear in a review under Commission 

rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the reviews. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification.—Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with these 

reviews must certify that the 

information is accurate and complete to 

the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In 

making the certification, the submitter 

will be deemed to consent, unless 

otherwise specified, for the 

Commission, its employees, and 

contract personnel to use the 

information provided in any other 

reviews or investigations of the same or 

comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions.—Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is March 31, 2011. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct expedited 

or full reviews. The deadline for filing 

such comments is May 16, 2011. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of sections 201.8 and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules and any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in 

accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the reviews 

must be served on all other parties to 

the reviews (as identified by either the 

public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the reviews you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information.—Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determinations in the reviews. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
11270 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2011 / Notices 

Information to be Provided In 

Response to this Notice of Institution: If 

you are a domestic producer, union/ 

worker group, or trade/business 

association; import/export Subject 

Merchandise from more than one 

Subject Country; or produce Subject 

Merchandise in more than one Subject 

Country, you may file a single response. 

If you do so, please ensure that your 

response to each question includes the 

information requested for each pertinent 

Subject Country. As used below, the 

term ‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address) and name, telephone number, 

fax number, and E-mail address of the 

certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on the Domestic Industry in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in each Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries after 

2004. 

(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in 

the U.S. market for the Domestic Like 

Product and the Subject Merchandise 

(including street address, World Wide 

Web address, and the name, telephone 

number, fax number, and E-mail address 

of a responsible official at each firm). 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Product or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2010, except as noted 

(report quantity data in pounds and 

value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). 

If you are a union/worker group or 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms in which your workers are 

employed/which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., 

the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(d) the quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country(ies), provide 

the following information on your 

firm’s(s’) operations on that product 

during calendar year 2010 (report 

quantity data in pounds and value data 

in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from each Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from each 

Subject Country; and 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from each Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject 

Country(ies), provide the following 

information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2010 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars, landed and duty-paid at the 

U.S. port but not including antidumping 

duties). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country after 2004, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2011 / Notices 11271 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country(ies), and such merchandise 

from other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 23, 2011. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4447 Filed 2–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–694] 

In the Matter of Certain Multimedia 

Display and Navigation Devices and 

Systems, Components Thereof, and 

Products Containing Same; Notice of 

Commission Determination To Reviewin-Part a Final Determination of No 

Violation of Section 337; Schedule for 

Filing Written Submissions on the 

Issues Under Review and on Remedy, 

the Public Interest, and Bonding 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to review 

certain portions of the final initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the 

presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) on December 16, 2010 finding 

no violation of section 337 in the abovecaptioned investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jia 

Chen, Office of the General Counsel, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436, telephone (202) 708–4737. 

Copies of non-confidential documents 

filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted the instant 

investigation on December 16, 2009, 

based on a complaint filed by Pioneer 

Corporation of Tokyo, Japan and 

Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. of Long 

Beach, California (collectively, 

‘‘Pioneer’’). 74 FR 66676 (Dec. 16, 2009). 

The complaint alleges violations of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into 

the United States, the sale for 

importation, and the sale within the 

United States after importation of 

certain multimedia display and 

navigation devices and systems, 

components thereof, and products 

containing same by reason of 

infringement of various claims of United 

States Patent Nos. 5,365,448 (‘‘the ‘448 

patent’’), 5,424,951 (‘‘the ‘951 patent’’), 

and 6,122,592 (‘‘the ‘592 patent’’). The 

complaint names Garmin International, 

Inc. of Olathe, Kansas, Garmin 

Corporation of Taiwan (collectively, 

‘‘Garmin’’) and Honeywell International 

Inc. of Morristown, New Jersey 

(‘‘Honeywell’’) as the proposed 

respondents. Honeywell was 

subsequently terminated from the 

investigation, leaving only the Garmin 

respondents remaining. 

On December 16, 2010, the ALJ issued 

a final ID, including his recommended 

determination on remedy and bonding. 

In his final ID, the ALJ found no 

violation of section 337 by Garmin. 

Specifically, the ALJ found that the 

accused products do not infringe claims 

1 and 2 of the ‘448 patent, claims 1 and 

2 of the ‘951 patent, or claims 1 and 2 

of the ‘592 patent. The ALJ further 

found that neither Garmin nor the 

Commission investigative attorney 

(‘‘IA’’) has established that claims 1 and 

2 of the ‘592 patent are invalid for 

obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 or for 

failing to comply with the written 

description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 

112. With respect to remedy, the ALJ 

recommended that if the Commission 

disagrees with the finding of no 

violation, the Commission should issue 

a limited exclusion order directed to 

multimedia display and navigation 

devices and systems, and the 

components of such devices and 

systems, as well as a cease and desist 

order. The ALJ recommended that the 

limited exclusion order contain a 

certification provision. In addition, the 

ALJ recommended, in the event that a 

violation is found, that Garmin be 

required to post a bond equal to 0.5 

percent of the entered value of any 

accused products that Garmin seeks to 

import during the Presidential review 

period. 

On January 5, 2011, Pioneer, Garmin, 

and the IA each filed a petition for 

review of the ALJ’s final ID. On January 

9, 2011, Pioneer filed a consolidated 

reply to Garmin’s and the IA’s petitions 

for review. On the same day, Garmin 

filed a reply to Pioneer’s petition for 

review and a separate reply to the IA’s 

petitions for review. Also on the same 

day, the IA filed a consolidated reply to 

Pioneer and Garmin’s petitions for 

review. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s final 

ID and the submissions of the parties, 

the Commission has determined to 

review (1) The claim construction of the 

limitation ‘‘second memory means’’ 

recited in claim 1 of the ‘951 patent, (2) 

infringement of claims 1 and 2 of the 

‘951 patent, (3) the claim construction of 

the limitations ‘‘extracting means’’ and 

‘‘a calculating device’’ recited in claim 1 

of the ‘592 patent, (4) infringement of 

claims 1 and 2 of the ‘592 patent, (5) 

validity of the ‘592 patent under the 

written description requirement of 35 

U.S.C. 112, and (6) the economic prong 

of the domestic industry requirement. 

No other issues are being reviewed. 

The parties should brief their 

positions on the issues on review with 

reference to the applicable law and the 

evidentiary record. In connection with 

its review, the Commission is 

particularly interested in responses to 

the following questions: 

1. With respect to claim 1 of the ‘951 

patent, does the claimed function of the 

limitation ‘‘second memory means’’ 

require ‘‘the read display pattern data’’ 

stored on the ‘‘second memory means’’ 

to be in the same data format with ‘‘said 

display pattern data * * * from said 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
37830 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Notices 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

2The Commission has found the responses 

submitted by DAK Americas, LLC, Palmetto 

Synthetics, LLC, U.S. Fibers, and Wellman Plastics 

Recycling, LLC, to be individually adequate. 

Comments from other interested parties will not be 

accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). 

blasters in Federal program states and 

on Indian lands. 

Total Annual Responses: 8. 

Total Annual Burden Hours: 18. 

Total Annual Non-Wage Burden Cost: 

$549. 

Dated: June 21, 2011. 

John A. Trelease, 

Acting Chief, Division of Regulatory Support. 

[FR Doc. 2011–16011 Filed 6–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–825 and 826 

(Second Review)] 

Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea and 

Taiwan; Scheduling of Expedited FiveYear Reviews Concerning the 

Antidumping Duty Orders on Polyester 

Staple Fiber From Korea and Taiwan 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of expedited 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty orders on polyester staple fiber 

from Korea and Taiwan would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR Part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR Part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: June 6, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Haines (202–205–3200), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On June 6, 2011, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (76 

FR 11268, March 1, 2011) of the subject 

five-year reviews was adequate and that 

the respondent interested party group 

response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting full reviews.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct expedited reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report.—A staff report 

containing information concerning the 

subject matter of the reviews will be 

placed in the nonpublic record on July 

28, 2011, and made available to persons 

on the Administrative Protective Order 

service list for these reviews. A public 

version will be issued thereafter, 

pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the reviews and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

reviews may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the 

reviews. Comments are due on or before 

August 2, 2011, and may not contain 

new factual information. Any person 

that is neither a party to the five-year 

reviews nor an interested party may 

submit a brief written statement (which 

shall not contain any new factual 

information) pertinent to the reviews by 

August 2, 2011. However, should the 

Department of Commerce extend the 

time limit for its completion of the final 

results of its reviews, the deadline for 

comments (which may not contain new 

factual information) on Commerce’s 

final results is three business days after 

the issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the reviews must be 

served on all other parties to the reviews 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Determination.—The Commission has 

determined to exercise its authority to 

extend the review period by up to 90 

days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B). 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: June 23, 2011. 

James R. Holbein, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

Proposed Work Schedule 

Investigation No. 731–TA–825 and 826 

(Second Review) 

Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and 

Taiwan 

STAFF ASSIGNED

Investigator ................................................................................................................................................................ Elizabeth Haines (205–3200). 

Commodity-Industry Analyst ..................................................................................................................................... Jackie Jones (205–3466). 

Attorney ..................................................................................................................................................................... Karl von Schriltz (205–3096). 

Acting Supervisory Investigator ................................................................................................................................. Elizabeth Haines (205–3200). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Notices 37831 

Date 

Institution .................................................................................................................................................. March 1, 2011. 

Report to the Commission:: 

Draft to Supervisory Investigator ...................................................................................................... July 13. 

Draft to Senior Review ...................................................................................................................... July 20. 

To the Commission ........................................................................................................................... July 28. 

Comments of Parties due 1 ...................................................................................................................... August 2.

Legal issues memorandum to the Commission ....................................................................................... August 9. 

Briefing and vote (suggested date) .......................................................................................................... August 30. 

Determination and views to Commerce ................................................................................................... September 13. 

1 If comments contain business proprietary information, a nonbusiness proprietary version is due the following business day. 

[FR Doc. 2011–16110 Filed 6–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

FOREIGN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT 

COMMISSION 

[F.C.S.C. Meeting Notice No. 4–11] 

Sunshine Act Meeting 

The Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission, pursuant to its regulations 

(45 CFR part 503) and the Government 

in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), 

hereby gives notice in regard to the 

scheduling of meetings for the 

transaction of Commission business and 

other matters specified, as follows: 

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, July 12, 2011, 

at 11 a.m. 

SUBJECT MATTER: Issuance of Proposed 

Decisions in claims against Albania and 

Libya. 

STATUS: Open. 

All meetings are held at the Foreign 

Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E 

Street, NW., Washington, DC. Requests 

for information, or advance notices of 

intention to observe an open meeting, 

may be directed to: Judith H. Lock, 

Executive Officer, Foreign Claims 

Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, 

NW.; Suite 6002, Washington, DC 

20579. Telephone: (202) 616–6975. 

Judith H. Lock, 

Executive Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–16322 Filed 6–24–11; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4410–BA–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

Petitions for Modification of 

Application of Existing Mandatory 

Safety Standards 

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Section 101(c) of the Federal 

Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and 

30 CFR part 44 govern the application, 

processing, and disposition of petitions 

for modification. This notice is a 

summary of petitions for modification 

submitted to the Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA) by the parties 

listed below to modify the application 

of existing mandatory safety standards 

codified in Title 30 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations. 

DATES: All comments on the petitions 

must be received by the Office of 

Standards, Regulations and Variances 

on or before July 28, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit your 

comments, identified by ‘‘docket 

number’’ on the subject line, by any of 

the following methods: 

1. Electronic Mail: zzMSHAcomments@dol.gov. Include the docket 

number of the petition in the subject 

line of the message. 

2. Facsimile: 202–693–9441. 

3. Regular Mail: MSHA, Office of 

Standards, Regulations and Variances, 

1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, 

Arlington, Virginia 22209–3939, 

Attention: Roslyn B. Fontaine, Acting 

Director, Office of Standards, 

Regulations and Variances. 

4. Hand-Delivery or Courier: MSHA, 

Office of Standards, Regulations and 

Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, 

Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209– 

3939, Attention: Roslyn B. Fontaine, 

Acting Director, Office of Standards, 

Regulations and Variances. 

MSHA will consider only comments 

postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or 

proof of delivery from another delivery 

service such as UPS or Federal Express 

on or before the deadline for comments. 

Individuals who submit comments by 

hand-delivery are required to check in 

at the receptionist desk on the 21st 

floor. 

Individuals may inspect copies of the 

petitions and comments during normal 

business hours at the address listed 

above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barbara Barron, Office of Standards, 

Regulations and Variances at 202–693– 

9447 (Voice), barron.barbara@dol.gov 

(E-mail), or 202–693–9441 (Telefax). 

[These are not toll-free numbers]. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine 

Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine 

Act) allows the mine operator or 

representative of miners to file a 

petition to modify the application of any 

mandatory safety standard to a coal or 

other mine if the Secretary determines 

that: (1) An alternative method of 

achieving the result of such standard 

exists which will at all times guarantee 

no less than the same measure of 

protection afforded the miners of such 

mine by such standard; or (2) that the 

application of such standard to such 

mine will result in a diminution of 

safety to the miners in such mine. In 

addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 

44.10 and 44.11 establish the 

requirements and procedures for filing 

petitions for modification. 

II. Petitions for Modification 

Docket Number: M–2011–004–M. 

Petitioner: Troy Mine, Inc., P.O. Box 

1660, Highway 56 South Mine Road, 

Troy, Montana 59935. 

Mine: Troy Mine, MSHA Mine I.D No. 

24–01467, located in Lincoln County, 

Montana. 

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 

57.11052(d) (Refuge areas). 

Modification Request: The petitioner 

requests a modification of the existing 

standard to not use compressed air lines 

as the means of providing air for the 

underground refuge chamber, and not to 

use waterlines as the means of 

providing water for the underground 

refuge chamber. The petitioner states 

that: (1) The Troy Mine is an 

underground room and pillar mine with 

five stratabound copper/silver ore 

horizons dipping at approximately four 

(4) degrees (7% grade) and is accessed 

through adits from the surface. (2) The 

refuge chamber is designed to sustain 12 

miners for 36 hours during a mine 

emergency. The refuge chamber is 

presently located in the ‘‘C’’ Bed 59 I 

crosscut. The unit is portable and future 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

38612 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices 

Suspended Investigations 

No Sunset Review of suspended 

investigations is scheduled for initiation 

in August 2011. 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in 19 CFR 351.218. Guidance on 

methodological or analytical issues 

relevant to the Department’s conduct of 

Sunset Reviews is set forth in the 

Department’s Policy Bulletin 98.3— 

Policies Regarding the Conduct of Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 

(April 16, 1998). The Notice of Initiation 

of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews 

provides further information regarding 

what is required of all parties to 

participate in Sunset Reviews. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Please note that if the Department 

receives a Notice of Intent to Participate 

from a member of the domestic industry 

within 15 days of the date of initiation, 

the review will continue. Thereafter, 

any interested party wishing to 

participate in the Sunset Review must 

provide substantive comments in 

response to the notice of initiation no 

later than 30 days after the date of 

initiation. 

This notice is not required by statute 

but is published as a service to the 

international trading community. 

Dated: June 21, 2011. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–16625 Filed 6–30–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–839, A–583–833] 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From 

the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: 

Final Results of the Expedited Sunset 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On March 1, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated the second sunset 

reviews of the antidumping duty orders 

on polyester staple fiber (PSF) from the 

Republic of Korea (Korea) and Taiwan, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). See 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review, 76 FR 11202 (March 1, 2011) 

(Notice of Initiation). The Department 

has conducted expedited (120-day) 

sunset reviews of these orders. As a 

result of these sunset reviews, the 

Department finds that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of dumping as indicated in 

the ‘‘Final Results of Reviews’’ section 

of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael A. Romani or Minoo Hatten, 

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– 

1690, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 1, 2011, the Department 

initiated sunset reviews of the 

antidumping duty orders on PSF from 

Korea and Taiwan pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Act. See Notice of 

Initiation. The Department received a 

notice of intent to participate from DAK 

Americas, LLC, Palmetto Synthetics 

LLC, and U.S. Fibers (collectively, the 

domestic interested parties) within the 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic 

interested parties claimed interestedparty status under section 771(9)(C) of 

the Act as manufacturers of a domestic 

like product in the United States. We 

received a complete substantive 

response from the domestic interested 

parties within the 30-day deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We 

received no responses from any 

respondent interested parties. As a 

result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department is 

conducting expedited (120-day) sunset 

reviews of the antidumping duty orders 

on PSF from Korea and Taiwan. 

Scope of the Orders 

The product covered by the orders 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 orders 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 orders. 

Also specifically excluded from the 

orders 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 orders. 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 orders 

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 orders is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these reviews are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders on Certain Polyester Staple Fiber 

from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan’’ 

from Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

dated concurrently with this notice 

(Issues and Decision Memo), which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. The 

issues discussed in the Issues and 

Decision Memo include the likelihood 

of continuation or recurrence of 

dumping and the magnitude of the 

margin likely to prevail if the orders 

were revoked. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in these sunset reviews and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum which is on file in 

room 7046 of the main Commerce 

Department building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Issues and Decision Memo can be 

accessed directly on the Internet at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy 

and electronic version of the Issues and 

Decision Memo are identical in content. 

Final Results of Reviews 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on PSF from Korea and Taiwan 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices 38613 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of dumping at the 

following weighted-average percentage 

margins: 

Country Company 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

Korea ..... Sam Young ............ 7.91 

All Others ............... 7.91 

Taiwan ... Far Eastern ............ 11.50 

Nan Ya ................... 3.79 

All Others ............... 7.31 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely written 

notification of the destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective orders is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

The Department is issuing and 

publishing these final results and this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: June 24, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–16651 Filed 6–30–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders and suspended investigation 

listed below. The International Trade 

Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) is 

publishing concurrently with this notice 

its notice of Institution of Five-Year 

Review which covers the same orders. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

For information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) 

and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). 

Guidance on methodological or 

analytical issues relevant to the 

Department’s conduct of Sunset 

Reviews is set forth in the Department’s 

Policy Bulletin 98.3—Policies Regarding 

the Conduct of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

and countervailing duty orders and 

suspended investigation: 

DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department contact 

A–583–803 ....... 731–TA–410 ..... Taiwan .............. Light-Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon 

Steel Pipe & Tube (3rd Review).

Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

A–533–808 ....... 731–TA–638 ..... India .................. Stainless Steel Wire Rod (3rd Review) ........... Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

A–533–502 ....... 731–TA–271 ..... India .................. Welded Carbon Steel Pipe & Tube (3rd Review).Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

A–549–502 ....... 731–TA–252 ..... Thailand ............ Welded Carbon Steel Pipe & Tube (3rd Review).Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

A–580–810 ....... 731–TA–540 ..... South Korea ..... Welded ASTM A–312 Stainless Steel Pipe 

(3rd Review).

Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

A–583–815 ....... 731–TA–541 ..... Taiwan .............. Welded ASTM A–312 Stainless Steel Pipe 

(3rd Review).

Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

A–583–008 ....... 731–TA–132 ..... Taiwan .............. Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes & 

Tubes (3rd Review).

Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

A–351–809 ....... 731–TA–532 ..... Brazil ................ Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe (3rd 

Review).

Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

A–201–805 ....... 731–TA–534 ..... Mexico .............. Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe (3rd 

Review).

Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

A–583–814 ....... 731–TA–536 ..... Taiwan .............. Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe (3rd 

Review).

Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

A–580–809 ....... 731–TA–533 ..... South Korea ..... Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe (3rd 

Review).

David Goldberger, (202) 482–4136. 

A–489–501 ....... 731–TA–273 ..... Turkey ............... Welded Carbon Steel Pipe & Tube (3rd Review).David Goldberger, (202) 482–4136. 

C–489–502 ....... 701–TA–253 ..... Turkey ............... Welded Carbon Steel Pipe & Tube (3rd Review).David Goldberger, (202) 482–4136. 

A–821–802 ....... 731–TA–539–C Russia .............. Uranium (3rd Review) (Suspension Agreement).Sally Gannon, (202) 482–0162. 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statue and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

APPENDIX B

STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan

Inv. Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Second Review)

On June 6, 2011, the Commission determined to conduct expedited reviews in the subject fiveyear reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. §

1675(c)(3)(b).

The Commission received a joint response filed on behalf of domestic interested parties DAK

Americas LLC, Palmetto Synthetics LLC, U.S. Fibers, and Wellman Plastics Recycling LLC, which are

domestic producers of certain polyester staple fiber (“PSF”). The Commission found this joint response

to the Commission’s notice of institution to be individually adequate for each of the responding firms. 

The Commission further determined that the domestic interested party group response was adequate

under the circumstances of this particular industry. 

The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested party in

either of the reviews and, therefore, determined that the respondent interested party group

responses were inadequate for both reviews.

The Commission did not find any circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review of

either order. The Commission, therefore, determined to conduct an expedited review of both orders.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and

the Commission’s web site (http://www.usitc.gov).

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA