Certain Polyester Staple Fiber 

From China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1104 (Final)

Publication 3922 June 2007

Washington, DC 20436
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Daniel R. Pearson, Chairman

Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman

Deanna Tanner Okun

Charlotte R. Lane

Irving A. Williamson

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Staff assigned

Nathanael Comly, Investigator

Jeff Clark, Industry Analyst

Kelly Clark, Economist

Mary Klir, Accountant

Karl von Schriltz, Attorney

Mara Alexander, Statistician

Diane Mazur, Supervisor Investigator

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

www.usitc.gov

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber 

From China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1104 (Final)

Publication 3922 June 2007
 
i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Part I: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

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

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

U.S. market summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Previous and related investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Nature and extent of sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

The subject product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Conjugate PSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

PSF for CIPP applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market ................................... II-1

U.S. market segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Geographic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-2

U.S. supply ............................................................... II-2

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5

Demand outside the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-7

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-7

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-8

Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports ............ II-16

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-17

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-17

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-17

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-18

Part III: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment .......................... III-1

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization ................................... III-4

U.S. producers’ domestic shipments and export shipments ............................. III-7

U.S. producers imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-9

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-9

U.S. employment, wages and productivity .......................................... III-10
ii

CONTENTS – continued

Page

Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent consumption, and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

The question of negligible imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Critical circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

Ratio of subject imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

Part V: Pricing and related information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Factors affecting prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Raw materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Transportation costs to the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-9

Lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-10

Part VI: Financial condition of U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Operations on certain PSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4

Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-5

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-5

Part VII: Threat considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-1

The industry in China .......................................................... VII-2

Chinese producers’ capacity, production, shipments, and inventories ..................... VII-4

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-8

Product shifting and dumping in third-country markets ................................ VII-8

U.S. imports after December 31, 2006 ............................................. VII-9

Information on nonsubject sources ................................................ VII-9

“Bratsk” considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-9

Methodology for selecting nonsubject countries and firms ........................... VII-11

Nonsubject source information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-11

Appendixes

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

B. Hearing witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

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

D. List of purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Nonsubject sources’ pricing data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

F. Alleged effects of subject imports on U.S. producers’ existing development and production 

efforts, growth, investment, and ability to raise capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-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.
 1

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

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-1104 (Final)

CERTAIN POLYESTER STAPLE FIBER FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigation, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19

U.S.C. § 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of

imports from China of certain polyester staple fiber, provided for in subheading 5503.20.00 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the Department of Commerce

(Commerce) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The Commission finds that

critical circumstances do not exist with respect to subject imports from China.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this investigation effective June 23, 2006, following receipt of a

petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by DAK Americas, LLC, Charlotte, NC; Nan Ya

Plastics Corporation, America, Lake City, SC; and Wellman, Inc., Shrewsbury, NJ. The final phase of the

investigation was scheduled by the Commission following notification of a preliminary determination by

Commerce that imports of certain polyester staple fiber from China were being sold at LTFV within the

meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase

of the Commission’s investigation and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given

by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission,

Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on January 11, 2007 (72 FR 1341). 

The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on March 13, 2007, and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.
 
 1

 We find that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to subject imports from Far Eastern Industries

(Shanghai) Ltd. (“Far Eastern”), an exporter of subject merchandise from China, for which Commerce issued an

affirmative critical circumstances determination. We have disregarded new factual information in the Final

Comments filed by respondents, see Memorandum INV-EE-050 (May 14, 2007), pursuant to the statute and our

regulations. 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(g); 19 C.F.R. § 207.30(b).

 2 Respondent Consolidated Fibers, Inc. (“Consolidated”), an importer of subject merchandise from China, filed

final comments on May 10, 2007, but did not otherwise participate in this final phase investigation.

 3 Confidential Staff Report (“CR”) at I-7, Public Staff Report (“PR”) at I-6. Certain PSF is also used on a more

limited basis in the production of ***. CR at I-8 n.18; PR at I-8 n.18. 

 4 Certain PSF is physically distinguishable from other types of polyester staple fiber not subject to this

investigation, including carpet fiber and fine denier PSF for spinning into textile products, in terms of the product’s

denier, length, and, in some cases, finish and “crimp.” While certain PSF is 3 denier or more in thickness and from 1

to 5 inches in length, fine denier PSF for textile applications is less than 3 denier in thickness and carpet fiber ranges

from 10 to 18 denier in thickness cut into lengths of 6 to 8 inches. Unlike fine denier PSF or carpet fiber, certain

PSF used as fiberfill is seldom visible after being incorporated into the finished product, generally making its

appearance less important to purchasers than its performance in terms of loft, smoothness to the touch, and profile

(i.e., hollow or solid). See, e.g., Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-825-826

(Review), USITC Pub. 3843 (Mar. 2006). 

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in this investigation, we determine that an industry in the United States is

materially injured by reason of imports of certain polyester staple fiber (“certain PSF”) from China that

have been found by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold in the United States at less

than fair value (“LTFV”).1

I. BACKGROUND

The petition in this investigation was filed on June 23, 2006 by DAK Americas, LLC (“DAK”),

Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America (“Nan Ya”), and Wellman, Inc. (“Wellman”) (together,

“petitioners”). Respondents opposing the imposition of antidumping duties are Ashley Furniture

Industries, Inc. (“Ashley”), Insituform Technologies, Inc. (“Insituform”), and Hollander Home

Furnishings Corp. (“Hollander”) (“respondents”), which are all importers and consumers of subject

merchandise.2

 No subject Chinese producer has made an appearance or provided any argument in this

final investigation. 

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.3

 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 conjugated, 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. 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.4

 

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
 5

 CR at I-9; PR at I-8.

 6 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A) (2000).

 7 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 8 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

 9 See, e.g., 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); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3

(Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on

the particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts of each case’”). The Commission generally considers a number

of factors including: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4)

customer and producer perceptions of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes and

production employees; and, where appropriate, (6) price. See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455 n.4; Timken Co. v. United

States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission may

consider other factors relevant to a particular investigation. The Commission looks for clear dividing lines among

possible like products, and disregards minor variations. See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91

(1979); Torrington Co., 747 F. Supp. at 748-49.

 10 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979).

 11 Nippon Steel, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49. See also S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979)

(Congress has indicated that the like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a narrow fashion as to

permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion that the product and article are

not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent

consideration of an industry adversely affected by the imports under consideration.”).

 12 Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs., 85 F.3d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Commission may find single

like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce); Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at

(continued...)

4

conjugate fiber is being produced. The second stage of the process, which is common to all certain PSF,

is fiber formation, including stretching, cutting, and baling.5

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

A. In General

In determining whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with

material injury by reason of imports of the subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”6

 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(“the Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a [w]hole 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.”7

 In turn, 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 . . . .”8

The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product(s) in an investigation is a factual

determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in

characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.9

 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.10 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.11

Although the Commission must accept the determination of Commerce as to the scope of the imported

merchandise allegedly sold at LTFV, the Commission determines what domestic product is like the

imported articles Commerce has identified.12
 12 (...continued)

748-752 (affirming Commission determination of six like products in investigations where Commerce found five

classes or kinds).

 13 CR at I-6; PR at I-6.

 14 CR at I-4; PR at I-3.

 15 CR at I-4; PR at I-3.

 16 CR at I-4; PR at I-3-4.

 17 Polyester Staple Fiber from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1104 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. No. 3878 (August 2006)

(“Preliminary Determination”) at 7-8. The Commission noted that this definition of the domestic like product is

consistent with the domestic like product definition with respect to the outstanding antidumping duty order on

certain PSF from Korea and Taiwan. See id. at 8 n.19. 

5

B. Product Description

In its notice of final determination at less than fair value, Commerce defined the imported

merchandise within the scope of the investigation as follows:

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 subject merchandise 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.

The following products are excluded from the scope: (1) PSF of less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3

denier) currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) at

subheading 5503.20.0025 and known to the industry as PSF for spinning and generally used in

woven and knit applications to produce textile and apparel products; (2) PSF 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 (3) low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component fiber with an outer, non-polyester sheath that

melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner polyester core (classified at HTSUS

5503.20.0015).13

The Commission has investigated certain PSF before, in response to an antidumping duty petition filed on

April 2, 1999 alleging that a domestic industry was materially injured by reason of dumped imports of

certain PSF from Korea and Taiwan.14 Following Commerce’s final affirmative dumping determinations,

the Commission rendered affirmative injury determinations and Commerce issued antidumping duty

orders with respect to certain PSF from Korea and Taiwan.15 On March 31, 2005, the Commission

instituted its five-year review of the antidumping duty orders on certain PSF from Korea and Taiwan and,

after Commerce determined that revocation of the orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence

of dumping, issued affirmative five-year review determinations on March 23, 2006.16

C. Domestic Like Product

In the preliminary phase investigation, the Commission defined the domestic like product as all

certain PSF, coextensive with the scope of the investigation.17 No party raised a like product issue in the

preliminary phase of the investigation. 

In this final phase of the investigation, two respondents raised like product issues, for the first

time, in their prehearing briefs: Ashley argues that the Commission should define conjugate PSF as a
 18 Although not determinative on the like product issue, we note that the information necessary for performing

separate injury analyses on respondents’ proposed like products was not collected because Ashley did not raise its

like product argument in either the preliminary phase investigation or in comments on the draft questionnaires in this

final phase investigation, and Insituform first raised its like product argument in its prehearing brief. See Letter from

Mowry International Group LLC to the Honorable Marilyn R. Abbot, Certain PSF from China, Inv. No. 731-TA1104 (Final) (Dec. 21, 2006) (In commenting on the draft questionnaires, Ashley did not indicate that it would be

making a like product argument with respect to any specific PSF product, or request that the Commission collect the

information that would be necessary to conduct a separate injury analysis with respect to conjugate PSF.). We

remind parties that as a general matter, as our rules contemplate, arguments that would require data collection, such

as those related to like product (and the consequent industry data corresponding to a newly proposed like product),

should be made during the preliminary phase of the investigation, or at least no later than the written comments on

draft questionnaires. See Notice of Final Rulemaking, 61 Fed. Reg. 37818, 37826 (July 22, 1996) (explaining the

promulgation of rule 207.20(b)) (“It is often impracticable to satisfy new data collection requests made during the

later stages of a final phase investigation, given the need to collect, verify, and analyze data, release data under APO,

and receive comments from the parties concerning data before the record closes.”). 

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

 20 CR at I-9; PR at I-8-9. See also Transcript of the Commission’s March 13, 2007 hearing (“Hearing Tr.”) at 23-

24 (Katz).

 21 See CR/PR at Table III-6.

 22 CR at I-9; PR at I-8.

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

 24 CR at I-8; PR at I-8. The greater the fill capacity of a PSF product, the lower the quantity required to fill a

given volume.

6

separate like product, and Insituform argues that the Commission should define PSF qualified for use in

its cured in place pipe applications (“CIPP PSF”), as a separate like product.18 Petitioners argue that no

new evidence has been collected in this final phase investigation that would warrant the Commission’s

reconsideration of its like product determination from the preliminary phase investigation. 

Based on the application of our six like product factors, we find a single domestic like product

comprised of all certain PSF.

1. Whether Conjugate PSF Should Be Defined as a Separate Like Product

Physical characteristics and uses

Conjugate PSF and non-conjugate PSF are both man-made fibers that are similar in appearance to

cotton or wool fiber when baled.19 PSF can be produced by reacting ethylene glycol with either

terephthalic acid or its methyl ester, yielding virgin PSF; by recycling post-consumer or post-industrial

waste, yielding regenerated or recycled PSF; or through a combination of the two processes.20 Conjugate

PSF can be produced from either virgin or regenerated fiber.21 Both conjugate and non-conjugate PSF

may be coated with a finish, typically silicone, to make the fiber smoother to the touch for high-end

uses.22 

Conjugate and non-conjugate PSF achieve varying degrees of loft, or fill capacity, in different

ways. Conjugate PSF achieves greater loft and fill capacity than non-conjugate PSF through the twisting

of two types of fiber into a three-dimensional spiral configuration, through either a chemical or a

mechanical process, prior to crimping, which produces additional loft.23 Non-conjugate PSF relies on

crimping alone for its loft, yielding somewhat less fill capacity,24 though Wellman testified at the hearing
 25 Hearing Tr. at 24-25 (Katz); see also Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 12.

 26 CR/PR at Table II-4 (including two producers, 13 importers, and 20 purchasers).

 27 CR/PR at Table II-4.

 28 Hearing Tr. at 25 (Katz).

 29 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 12.

 30 See Ashley Prehearing Brief at 9; Hearing Tr. at 183 (Plummer).

 31 See Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at 3 n.2, Exhibit 1; Petitioners’ Responses to Commissioner Questions at 46-

47, Exhibit 3.

 32 CR at I-10-11; PR at I-9-10.

 33 CR at I-11; PR at I-9.

 34 CR at I-11; PR at I-9.

7

that it has developed a 3-D high void non-conjugate PSF with physical characteristics comparable to that

of conjugate PSF.25 

All PSF, both conjugate and non-conjugate, is generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags,

mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and furniture.

Interchangeability

A majority of producers, importers, and purchasers responding to the Commission’s

questionnaire (specifically 35 of 59 questionnaire respondents) reported that conjugate PSF and

mechanically crimped non-conjugate PSF are “sometimes” interchangeable.26 Of the balance, two

producers reported that the products are “always” interchangeable; one importer reported that the

products are “usually” interchangeable and three “never” interchangeable; two purchasers reported that

the products are “usually” interchangeable; and 16 purchasers reported that the products are “never”

interchangeable.27 

Wellman testified at the hearing that laboratory testing confirmed that its 3-D high void nonconjugate PSF is comparable to conjugate PSF, and hence interchangeable, in terms of loft, loft recovery,

cross-section, and other tests.28 In an e-mail exchange between Wellman and Ashley that took place prior

to the petition’s filing, however, Ashley indicated that Wellman’s 3-D high void product appeared to

offer 17 percent less fill power and less resiliency than the conjugate PSF that Ashley has been

purchasing.29 Ashley contends that the inferior fill power of non-conjugate PSF makes it an

uneconomical substitute for conjugate PSF.30 However, petitioners contend that the PSF Ashley

purchases may not be conjugate PSF at all, but rather non-conjugate PSF similar to Wellman’s 3-D high

void product.31

Common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees

PSF production is a two-stage process. The first stage varies depending upon whether virgin,

regenerated, or conjugate PSF is being produced. Non-conjugate virgin or regenerated PSF first

undergoes polymer formation before being extruded through a shower-head like spinneret and solidified

with a blast of cold air.32 By contrast, the first stage of conjugate PSF production involves forcing two

polymers of differing viscosities through a Y-shaped extruder before being blasted with cold air to make a

single fiber.33 Additionally, conjugate PSF requires a double spinning process as opposed to a single

spinning process for non-conjugate PSF.34
 35 CR at I-11; PR at I-10; see also Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at 3.

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

 37 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at 3; CR at I-11; PR at I-10.

 38 See Ashley Prehearing Brief at 10.

 39 CR at I-13; PR at I-11.

 40 CR at I-13; PR at I-11.

 41 CR at I-13; PR at I-11; see also Hearing Tr. at 24-25 (Katz) (“Our mechanically crimped 3-D high void

product is used for precisely the same end uses as a conjugate product.”).

 42 Hearing Tr. at 183 (Plummer).

 43 CR/PR at Table II-4.

 44 Compare CR/PR at Table V-4 (non-conjugate virgin PSF, 12-15 denier, slick) with id. at Table V-5 (conjugate

PSF, 12-15 denier, slick). U.S. producer prices for product 4 (non-conjugate PSF) were lower than for product 5

(conjugate PSF) from January-March 2004 through January-March 2005, and then higher thereafter. Subject import

prices for product 4 were lower than prices for product 5 in five quarters, equal to prices for product 5 in one quarter,

and higher than prices for product 5 in six quarters. 

8

The second stage of production is common to both conjugate and non-conjugate PSF.35 So-called

spun tow is coated with oil, sent over a creel and draw wheels to orient and strengthen the fibers, crimped

by machine, and then heat-set in an oven.36 Nan Ya, the sole domestic producer of conjugate PSF,

reportedly uses the same employees to produce conjugate and non-conjugate PSF.37

Channels of distribution

Ashley concedes that conjugate and non-conjugate PSF share similar channels of distribution.38

Certain PSF, including conjugate and non-conjugate PSF, was sold primarily to end users, 81.7 percent of

U.S. shipments in 2006, with the balance, 18.3 percent, sold to distributors.39

Customer and producer perceptions

The record of this investigation and past Commission proceedings concerning certain PSF

indicates that customers choose among different types of PSF using a total cost analysis.40 Some

customers are willing to pay more for PSF that offers higher fill capacity, such as conjugate PSF. Others

prefer to purchase a larger quantity of PSF that costs less than conjugate PSF but has a lower fill capacity,

such as mechanically crimped non-conjugate PSF.41 For example, Ashley testified at the hearing that it

would have to purchase a greater quantity of non-conjugate PSF to fill the same volume as a smaller

quantity of conjugate PSF.42 The fact that all producers reported that conjugate and non-conjugate PSF is

either always or sometimes interchangeable, while a majority of importers and purchasers reported that

the products are “sometimes” interchangeable, also suggests that customers and producers perceive the

products to be interchangeable to a certain extent.43 

Price

Pricing product data indicates that prices for conjugate PSF were generally comparable to prices

for non-conjugate PSF over the period of investigation.44 
 45 As a result, we find that Ashley’s product comparisons and Wellman’s response, detailed above, do not

conflict with our finding on interchangeability and are each indications of the operation of the certain PSF market.

 46 Insituform Prehearing Brief at 6; CR at I-17 n.57; PR at I-13 n.57.

 47 Invista’s Supplemental Questionnaire Response at Question V-1(a); see also CR at I-17-18; PR at I-14. 

Insituform argues that Invista “obfuscated” the unique physical characteristics and uses of CIPP PSF in its

supplemental questionnaire response. Insituform Final Comments at 1-2; see also Insituform Prehearing Brief at 6. 

Specifically, Insituform observes that Invista treated PSF cut into one to four inch lengths as CIPP PSF, when all

CIPP PSF must be cut in three to four inch lengths. Id. But Insituform itself stressed the importance of physical

characteristics other than cut length, including crimp count, elasticity, elongation, finish, and shape, in arguing that

CIPP PSF is a separate like product, see Insituform Prehearing Brief at 6-9; Insituform Posthearing Brief at 4-5;

Hearing Tr. at 167-70 (Costa), and Invista reported that *** of its PSF shipments possess these same characteristics. 

Invista’s Supplemental Questionnaire Response at Question V-1(a); see also CR at I-17-18; PR at I-14. Moreover,

Invista’s supplemental questionnaire response is consistent with ***, and there is no evidence that *** reported PSF

in cut lengths other than three to four inches as CIPP PSF. We note that Insituform’s like product argument with

respect to cut length has been inconsistent, with its prehearing brief and hearing testimony citing a cut length of three

to four inches and its posthearing brief citing a cut length of four to five inches. Compare Insituform’s Prehearing

(continued...)

9

Conclusion

Conjugate PSF and non-conjugate PSF are both man-made polyester staple fibers that are similar

in appearance and application, but have generally different structures, due to differences in the first stage,

but not the second stage, of their production processes. Conjugate and non-conjugate PSF are used in the

same applications, and share the same processes and equipment for the second stage of production. 

Further, they are produced using the same employees by the lone domestic producer of both types of PSF,

Nan Ya; they share the same channels of distribution; and they are priced similarly. Most producers,

importers, and purchasers report that conjugate and non-conjugate PSF are either always, usually, or

sometimes interchangeable, though a substantial minority of purchasers and importers report that the

products are never interchangeable. According to hearing and conference testimony, purchasers choose

between conjugate and non-conjugate PSF based on the optimal combination of price and performance.45

Thus, customers and producers appear to perceive the products as competitive to a certain degree.

We find that no clear dividing line separates conjugate PSF from non-conjugate PSF under the

Commission’s six like product factors. The similarities between conjugate and non-conjugate PSF in

terms of physical characteristics, uses, interchangeability, production processes, employees and facilities,

customer and producer perceptions, channels of distribution, and price all indicate that the products

belong to a single like product, notwithstanding certain differences in terms of physical characteristics,

production processes, and customer perceptions. We therefore conclude that conjugate and nonconjugate PSF belong to a single domestic like product.

3. Whether CIPP PSF Should Be Defined as a Separate Like Product

Physical characteristics and uses

Insituform claims that the CIPP PSF it requires possesses very particular performance

characteristics, including 8-9 crimps per inch, tensile elongation of 38-45 percent, and 3g-5g tenacity per

denier.46 The fact that purchasers of PSF for other applications do not require the same performance

characteristics, however, does not necessarily mean that the PSF they purchase is physically different

from CIPP PSF. 

Invista, Insituform’s primary PSF supplier, reports that “the specifications for [CIPP PSF] and

certain PSF, except for cut length, are exactly the same for *** of its products.”47 According to Invista,
 47 (...continued)

Brief at 6; Hearing Tr. at 167 (Costa) with Insituform’s Posthearing Brief at 2. 

 48 Invista’s Supplemental Questionnaire Response at Question V-1(a); CR at I-17; PR at I-14.

 49 CR at I-18; PR at I-14.

 50 Insituform Posthearing Brief at 7.

 51 Invista’s Supplemental Questionnaire Response at Question V-1(b).

 52 Invista’s Supplemental Questionnaire Response; CR/PR at Table I-3.

 53 CR at I-18; PR at I-14.

 54 See Hearing Tr. at 206 (Costa).

 55 CR at I-13; PR at I-11.

 56 See Hearing Tr. at 171 (Costa); Insituform Responses to Commissioner Questions at 1-3.

10

both CIPP PSF and other types of PSF “can be processed through the same processing technologies and

equipment (like carding, needlepunching, blowing) and can serve a wide variety of end uses (like

fiberfilling, [ ]. . . insulation, filtration).”48 Insituform’s Chinese supplier, ***, also reports that the same

type of PSF supplied to Insituform is used by other customers in other applications, including nonwovens and fiberfill.49

Interchangeability

Insituform claims that it cannot substitute any other type of PSF for the CIPP PSF it requires for

CIPP applications and opines that CIPP PSF could not be used in pillows because it is uncoated.50 But

Invista reports that “it has sold [CIPP PSF] into applications besides CIPP, such as into traditional fiberfill

and felt-type applications.”51 Indeed, Invista reportedly shipped *** percent of its CIPP PSF to customers

other than Insituform in 2006.52 ***, too, reports that it sold CIPP PSF to customers other than Insituform

for use in fiberfill applications.53 When asked whether CIPP PSF was suitable for other applications at

the hearing, Insituform was unable to give a definitive answer.54

Manufacturing processes, employees, and facilities

Insituform concedes that the production processes are similar between CIPP PSF and other types

of PSF, with a few exceptions. Invista confirms that CIPP PSF and other types of PSF are manufactured

on the same equipment, using the same raw materials and standard operating conditions.

Channels of distribution

Insituform claims that all CIPP PSF is sold directly to end users, unlike other types of PSF. 

However, 81.7 percent of certain PSF shipments from U.S. producers, and the “vast majority” of subject

import shipments, were to end users rather than distributors in 2006.55

Customer and producer perceptions

Insituform clearly regards CIPP PSF as the only PSF product suitable for its end-use application. 

Notwithstanding an extensive search for alternative suppliers, Insituform has found only two producers

able to satisfy its rigorous qualification process.56 At least two domestic producers that unsuccessfully

attempted to qualify as suppliers of CIPP PSF to Insituform, DAK and Wellman, would presumably

perceive the product as distinct from the PSF products sold to other customers. On the other hand,
 57 Invista’s Supplemental Questionnaire Response at Question V-19(a) and (e).

 58 Compare Insituform Posthearing Brief at 9 with CR/PR at Table C-1. We find the additional pricing

information provided by Insituform, in response to a question by Commissioner Deanna T. Okun at the hearing, to

be of limited probative value. See Insituform Responses to Commissioner Questions at 4-5. The chart titled “2005

Fiber Price Compare” [sic] compares CIPP PSF prices to the prices of other PSF products that remain unspecified. 

See id. at 4. The chart indicates that the price Insituform paid for CIPP PSF from Invista in 2005 was comparable to

the AUV of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments that year, $0.71 per pound, as well as comparable to prices for

domestic producer shipments of pricing products 1, 4, and 5. Compare id. with CR/PR at Tables V-1, 4-5, C-1. The

table headed “Reference only pricing - FOB their dock” contains price quotes, rather than transaction prices, for

several periods in 2004 and 2005, without further explanation for why these periods were chosen. Insituform

Responses to Commissioner Questions at 5. 

 59 Insituform Posthearing Brief at 10.

 60 See Nippon Steel v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 457 (1995) (citing R-M Indus., Inc. v. United States, 848

F.Supp. 204, 210 n.9 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994)) (holding that “the Commission is not required to find that products must

be completely interchangeable” to be defined as a single like product); see also Sodium Azide from Japan, Inv. No.

731-TA-740 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 2948 (March 1996) at 5 n.28 (noting that “[t]he absence of complete

interchangeability among the different end uses of sodium azide does not require the finding of separate domestic

(continued...)

11

Invista, ***, and many of their customers reportedly perceive CIPP PSF and other types of PSF as

interchangeable.57

Price

Insituform’s own pricing data belies its claim that CIPP PSF commands a substantial price

premium over certain PSF, showing that the two products were priced comparably over the period of

investigation.58 Though Insituform claims that CIPP PSF previously commanded a *** percent price

premium over other types of PSF before domestic competition for Insituform’s business forced Invista to

lower its prices, CIPP PSF commanded *** price premium over all certain PSF in 2004, before

Insituform claims to have begun seeking out additional domestic suppliers in response to the 2005

hurricanes.59

Conclusion

Insituform’s suppliers of CIPP PSF, Invista and ***, report that the physical characteristics that

make CIPP PSF uniquely suited for CIPP applications, with the possible exception of cut length, do not

preclude the product’s use in other, more prosaic applications. Invista reportedly ships *** of its CIPP

PSF to customers other than Insituform for end uses other than CIPP and produces CIPP PSF in the same

manner as other forms of certain PSF. *** reportedly sells CIPP PSF to customers other than Insituform

for non-woven and fiberfill applications. In addition, CIPP PSF is sold directly to end users, like other

forms of certain PSF, and was priced comparably to other types of certain PSF over the period of

investigation. 

The principal difference between CIPP PSF and other types of PSF is that only CIPP PSF is

suitable for use in Insituform’s CIPP applications. Consequently, Insituform and PSF producers that have

unsuccessfully attempted to qualify their PSF for Insituform’s CIPP applications would perceive CIPP

PSF as separate and distinct from other PSF products. 

We find no clear dividing line between CIPP PSF and other forms of certain PSF under our six

like product factors. Though CIPP PSF may be uniquely suited for Insituform’s CIPP application and

may be perceived as such by Insituform and certain producers, products need not be perfectly

interchangeable to be included within a single domestic like product.60 CIPP PSF and other types of
 60 (...continued)

like products”); Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Japan and the Republic of Korea, Inv. Nos.

731-TA-458-459 (Final), USITC Pub. 2383 (May 1991) at 8 (finding a single like product though “end use alone

would argue for finding literally dozens of separate like products” given the “many distinct end uses for different

types of PET film”), 11-12 (noting that “the Commission has never viewed complete interchangeability as a

definitive requirement for the inclusion of multiple domestic products in a single like product”).

 61 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 62 United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 681-84 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d

1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

 63 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 64 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

12

certain PSF are reportedly interchangeable in other end uses and otherwise similar in terms of the

Commission’s like product factors. Accordingly, we conclude that CIPP PSF is part of a single like

product encompassing all certain PSF products.

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

The domestic industry is defined as the “producers as a [w]hole 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.”61 In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general

practice has been to include in the industry all domestic production of the domestic like product, whether

toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market.62 Based on our finding that

the domestic like product is certain PSF, we find that the domestic industry consists of all known

domestic producers of certain PSF. The eight firms that comprise the domestic industry are DAK;

Formed Fiber Technologies, Inc.; Invista S.a.r.l.; Nan Ya; Palmetto Synthetics, LLC; United Synthetics,

Inc.; U.S. Fibers; and Wellman.63

A. Related Parties

We must determine whether any producer of the domestic like product should be excluded from

the domestic industry pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). Subsection 1677(4)(B) 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.64 Exclusion

of such a producer is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts presented in each

investigation. 

In our preliminary determination, we found that United Synthetics might qualify as a related party

given its *** percent ownership by ***, the ***, but determined that circumstances did not warrant the

exclusion of United Synthetics from the domestic industry.

In this final phase of the investigation, no party has argued that United Synthetics should be

excluded from the domestic industry as a related party. Moreover, no new information has been placed

on the record since the preliminary phase investigation relevant to whether United Synthetics is a related

party. Upon this record, we again find that it is unclear whether the *** ownership of United Synthetics

by *** renders it a related party. 

Even if United Synthetics were a related party, we find that circumstances would not warrant its

exclusion from the domestic industry. Over the period of investigation, United Synthetics demonstrated

its commitment to domestic production by shipping a significant quantity of PSF, with sales quantity

increasing from *** million pounds in 2004 to *** million pounds in 2006, and by importing no subject
 65 CR/PR at Tables III-7 (*** imports of certain PSF from China were *** pounds in 2004, *** pounds in 2005,

and *** pounds in 2006) and VI-2.

 66 See CR/PR at Table VI-2.

 67 Consistent with her practice in past investigations and reviews, Vice Chairman Aranoff does not rely on

individual-company operating income margins in assessing whether a related party has benefitted from importation

of subject merchandise. Rather, she determines whether to exclude a related party based principally on its ratio of

subject imports to domestic shipments and whether its primary interests lie in domestic production or importation.

 68 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 69 In this investigation, subject imports accounted for more than 3 percent of the volume of certain PSF imported

into the United States from all sources in the most recent 12-month period for which data are available preceding the

filing of the petition. CR at IV-11; PR at IV-7. As such, we find that subject imports are not negligible under 19

U.S.C. § 1677(24).

 70 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b).

 71 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)( i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination” but shall “identify each [such] factor . . . [a]nd explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B). See also Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

 72 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 73 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 74 Id.

13

merchandise itself.65 United Synthetic’s financial performance trend was comparable to that of other

domestic producers, though *** the industry average.66 67 No party has alleged that United Synthetics’s

relationship with *** has shielded it from subject import competition. Finally, including or excluding

United Synthetics from the domestic industry would not significantly influence the Commission’s

analysis of domestic industry data, given that United Synthetics accounted for *** percent of domestic

industry production in 2006.68

We therefore define the domestic industry as all domestic producers of certain PSF, including

United Synthetics.

IV. MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF LESS THAN FAIR VALUE IMPORTS FROM

CHINA69

 In the final phase of antidumping duty investigations, the Commission determines whether an

industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of the imports under investigation.70 In

making this determination, the Commission must consider the volume of imports, their effect on prices

for the domestic like product, and their impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product, but

only in the context of U.S. production operations.71 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which

is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”72 In assessing whether the domestic industry is

materially injured by reason of subject imports, we consider all relevant economic factors that bear on the

state of the industry in the United States.73 No single factor is dispositive, and all relevant factors are

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

the affected industry.”74
 75 CR at II-7; PR at II-5.

 76 CR at II-7; PR at II-5; CR/PR at Figure II-1.

 77 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 78 See CR at II-7; PR at II-5; CR/PR at Figure II-1.

 79 See CR at II-8; PR at II-6; Hearing Tr. at 75 (Katz), 76-77 (McNaull). Petitioners claim that growth in imports

containing certain PSF has been confined to upholstered furniture, as other products containing PSF, such as pillows

and comforters, are too bulky to import economically. See Hearing Tr. at 77 (McNaull), 80 (Katz). 

 80 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 9.

 81 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 82 CR/PR at Table III-2.

 83 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 9; Hearing Tr. at 18 (McNaull).

 84 See Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 9; Hearing Tr. at 18 (McNaull).

 85 CR/PR at Table III-9.

14

A. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

The following conditions of competition are pertinent to our analysis of the impact of certain PSF

imports from China on the domestic industry.

1. Demand Conditions

Demand for PSF generally is related to the amount of housing-related activity in the economy and

demand for all end uses generally tracks overall economic activity.75 Housing starts, used in the PSF

industry as an indicator of furniture and bedding demand, grew from 2004 through early 2006, but then

fell through the end of 2006.76 U.S. apparent consumption of PSF declined 5.4 percent over the period of

investigation, from 1.13 billion pounds in 2004 to 1.07 billion pounds in 2006, notwithstanding a 2.2

percent increase between 2004 and 2005.77 Declining demand in 2006 resulted from a slump in the

housing market, which depressed demand for bedding, pillows, and upholstered furniture,78 and increased

imports of products that contain certain PSF.79 

2. Supply Conditions

a. Domestic Industry Capacity

Even as domestic producers shed 115 million pounds of certain PSF capacity over the period of

investigation, reportedly in an effort to bolster their flagging capacity utilization rates,80 domestic industry

capacity utilization declined from 82.5 percent in 2004 to 73.9 percent in 2006.81 Given their low rate of

capacity utilization, domestic producers possessed unused capacity of 201.9 million pounds in 2006,

equal to 18.9 percent of U.S. apparent consumption that year.82 

 According to petitioners, domestic producers must operate at a high rate of capacity utilization

in order to reduce their unit fixed costs to an economic level, given high capital and energy costs.83 The

domestic industry’s declining capacity utilization rate increased the industry’s fixed costs per unit as its

relatively high capital and energy costs were spread over fewer units of production.84 Moreover, low

capacity utilization rates contributed to a dramatic decline in labor productivity, from 316.6 pounds per

hour in 2004 to 268.6 pounds per hour in 2006,85 as domestic producers were compelled to maintain
 86 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at 8-9; Hearing Tr. at 84 (Chandrl), 84-85 (McNaull), 86-87 (Katz). Petitioners

testified that producers have little flexibility in reducing manpower on production lines that operate at less than full

capacity as a technical matter, and that highly trained employees cannot be lightly laid off or easily re-hired. See id.

 87 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 88 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 11. As additional confirmation of the hurricane’s limited impact, petitioners

cite respondent interested party testimony from the five-year reviews of the antidumping duty orders on PSF from

Korea and Taiwan that PSF price hikes due to the hurricanes in August and September of 2005 were rescinded by

November 2005. Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 12 (citing Hearing Transcript, PSF from Korea and Taiwan, at 308,

310).

 89 CR at II-4; PR at II-3.

 90 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 11.

 91 CR at II-3; PR at II-2. Similarly, two of six purchasers responding to the Commission’s questions concerning

problems with PSF supplies cited the hurricanes in 2005 as a source of such problems. Id.

 92 Hollander Posthearing Brief at 9; Insituform Posthearing Brief at 10. At odds with Insituform’s claim,

however, is the fact that Invista, its only domestic supplier, did not report any ill-effects from the hurricanes, nor any

disruption to its ability to serve customers over the period of investigation. See CR at II-3-4. Thus, Invista reported

no disruption to its ability to supply customers that would have forced Insituform to seek out new suppliers. 

 93 See CR at II-16; PR at II-11; CR/PR at Tables II-5-6.

 94 CR at II-16; PR at II-11 (When purchasers were asked how often they purchase the lowest priced PSF, 18

responded “sometimes,” 13 responded “usually,” five responded “never,” and two responded “always.”). 

15

minimum staffing levels even as production declined.86 Direct labor and other factory costs increased by

$0.03 per pound, or 18 percent, over the period of investigation.87 

b. Impact of the 2005 Hurricanes

The record in this investigation is mixed on the impact of the 2005 hurricanes, Katrina and Rita,

but it appears that they contributed to temporary supply disruptions in the U.S. market for certain PSF. 

Petitioners claim that the 2005 hurricanes had only a limited impact on the domestic industry’s ability to

serve its customers, increasing prices and disrupting PSF supplies over the last three months of 2005.88

Thirty purchasers, however, reported various effects including price increases, temporary supply

disruptions, energy surcharges, and increased demand for imported PSF.89 *** reported that its ***

facility was disrupted by the hurricanes for one to two months and *** declared force majeure under its

supply contracts between the fall of 2005 and January 2006.90 Only 12 of 33 purchasers responding to the

Commission’s question concerning changes in the availability of certain PSF over the period of

investigation cited the hurricanes as a factor that had impacted the availability of certain PSF.91 Both

Hollander and Insituform, however, claim that they first began purchasing subject imports after their

supplies of domestic PSF had been disrupted by the hurricanes.92 

c. Substitutability

Competition in the certain PSF market is price based to a significant degree. Of the 38 purchasers

responding to the Commission’s questionnaires, representing 53.4 percent of U.S. PSF consumption in

2006, 26 listed price as the first or second most important factor in purchasing decisions and 33 reported

that “price” is “very important” to purchasing decisions.93 Most purchasers reported sometimes or usually

purchasing the lowest-priced PSF.94 Most producers and importers reported that factors other than price

are either sometimes or never significant for purchasers choosing between subject imports and the
 95 CR/PR at Table II-9.

 96 CR at II-11; PR at II-7-8. We recognize that Hollander and Ashley do not consider the domestic like product

to be an acceptable substitute for subject imports. Hollander testified at the Commission’s hearing that it is willing

to pay more for imported certain PSF, both subject and non-subject, because only imported PSF offers the runability

and product attributes that Hollander needs to remain competitive in the global marketplace. See Hearing Tr. at 191,

196, 200, 245-248 (Epstein). Ashley testified that it increased purchases of subject imported conjugate PSF because

domestic conjugate PSF cannot satisfy its high quality and yield requirements, and not because of price. See

Hearing Tr. at 177-78, 182-83 (Plummer); see also Ashley Prehearing Brief at 11-13. Both Hollander and Ashley

complained that domestic producers have been unresponsive to their needs. See Hearing Tr. at 184 (Plummer), 196-

197 (Epstein); Hollander Posthearing Brief at 9; Ashley Prehearing Brief at 13. We have taken respondents’ views

into account, but must base our analysis of substitutability on record information collected from a broad range of

producers, importers, and purchasers. In addition, we note that Hollander’s and Ashley’s avowed concerns with the

quality of domestic certain PSF did not prevent *** over the period of investigation. See Purchasers’ Questionnaire

Responses of *** at Question II-1. 

 97 CR/PR at Table II-7. Five purchasers reported in narrative questionnaire responses that they increased

purchases of subject imports over the period of investigation due to price. See Purchasers’ Questionnaire Responses

of ***.

 98 CR at II-22; PR at II-15.

 99 CR/PR at Table II-8.

 100 See CR at V-4-5; PR at V-4 (Of seven producers, five reported that 70 percent or more of their sales were on a

spot basis, one reported that a majority of its sales were made on a long-term contract basis, and one reported that all

of its sales were made pursuant to short-term contracts. Of 12 importers, six reported that 60 percent or more of

their sales were made pursuant to short-term contracts and six reported that 75 percent or more of their sales were

made on a spot basis.). Twenty-two purchasers reported the time required to qualify a new supplier, which ranged

from one day to six months. CR at II-21; PR at II-14. 

 101 CR at II-22; PR at II-15.

 102 See CR/PR at Table C-1. Between 2004 and 2006, subject imports gained *** percentage points of market

share as domestic producers lost 13.3 percentage points of market share and non-subject imports lost *** of market

(continued...)

16

domestic like product, though a significant minority of importers reported that non-price factors are

always or frequently significant.95

Commission staff characterized the degree of interchangeability between subject imports and the

domestic like product as “moderate-to-high.”96 Substantiating that assessment, purchasers deemed U.S.

and Chinese certain PSF comparable with respect to all factors but “lower price,” for which 7 of 15

purchasers deemed U.S. PSF inferior, and “delivery time” and “extension of credit,” for which 7 of 15

purchasers deemed U.S. PSF superior.97 Most purchasers reported that both subject imports and the

domestic like product either usually or always satisfied their minimum quality specifications.98 Of 53

responses to the Commission’s question regarding the frequency that subject imports and the domestic

like product can be used interchangeably, 26 questionnaire respondents, including domestic producers,

importers, and purchasers, reported “sometimes,” 16 reported “frequently,” seven reported “always,” and

only four reported “never.”99 

The prevalence of spot and short-term contract sales in the certain PSF market, as opposed to

long-term contract sales, indicates that many purchasers could easily switch suppliers on the basis of price

or other factors.100 Indeed, 17 of 38 responding purchasers reported changing suppliers over the past three

years, with six adding Chinese suppliers, four adding U.S. producers, and two dropping U.S. producers.101

As discussed below, the large shift in market share from domestic producers to subject imports over the

period of investigation in an environment of relatively stable demand is further evidence that many

purchasers switched from the domestic like product to subject imports.102
 102 (...continued)

share. Id. This large market share shift, against a backdrop of relatively stable demand, belies the argument,

belatedly advanced by respondent Consolidated, that subject import competition was attenuated because regenerated

PSF, comprising a majority of subject imports, does not compete with virgin PSF, comprising the majority of

domestic producer shipments. Consolidated Final Comments at 3. In fact, the vast majority of producers, importers,

and purchasers responding to the Commission’s questionnaires reported that regenerated PSF and virgin PSF

products are at least “sometimes” used interchangeably. CR/PR at Table II-4. Wellman, the largest U.S. producer of

regenerated PSF over the POI, testified at the hearing that its customers did not care whether the PSF they purchased

was made from regenerated or virgin inputs. Hearing Tr. at 121 (Katz). 

 103 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 104 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 105 CR/PR at Table C-1 (non-subject import AUVs were $*** in 2004, $*** in 2005, and $*** in 2006, while

subject imports AUVs were $*** in 2004, $*** in 2005, and $*** in 2006). We are mindful that AUVs may

present product mix issues in that values may reflect different merchandise rather than differences in price. See

Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 287 F.3d 1365, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 

 106 Pricing data on non-subject imports from India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Thailand, and

Vietnam show that non-subject imports generally undersold the domestic like product with respect to products 1-4,

though not with the same frequency as subject imports, and generally oversold the domestic like product with respect

to product 5. CR/PR at Appendix E.

 107 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I); Statement of Administration Action (“SAA”) at 854. 

 108 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 109 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

17

d. Non-subject imports

Non-subject import volume declined *** percent over the period of investigation, from ***

million pounds in 2004, or *** percent of apparent consumption, to *** million pounds in 2006, or ***

percent of apparent consumption.103 The volume of non-subject imports from Korea and Taiwan, subject

to antidumping duty orders, declined by an even larger amount, 26.5 percent, from 282.2 million pounds

in 2004, or 25.0 percent of U.S. apparent consumption, to 207.3 million pounds in 2006, or 19.4 percent

of U.S. apparent consumption.104 The average unit value (“AUV”) of non-subject imports was

significantly higher than the AUV of subject imports throughout the period of investigation.105 106

B. Volume of Subject Imports

 Section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Act provides that the “Commission shall consider whether the volume

of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to

production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”107

Both subject import volume and market share increased significantly over the period of

investigation. Subject import volume increased *** percent, from *** million pounds in 2004, or ***

percent of apparent consumption, to *** million pounds in 2005, or *** percent of apparent consumption,

and to *** million pounds in 2006, or *** percent of apparent consumption.108 That subject import

volume increased by *** percent between 2005 and 2006 is particularly notable given the 7.4 percent

decline in U.S. apparent consumption over the period.109 

The *** percentage points of market share that subject imports captured between 2004 and 2006

came at the expense of the domestic industry, which lost 13.3 percentage points, and to a lesser extent
 110 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 111 CR/PR at Table IV-7.

 112 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 113 CR/PR at Table II-7. 

 114 CR/PR at Table II-8.

 115 CR at II-16; PR at II-11; CR/PR at Tables II-5, II-6. 

 116 CR/PR at Table II-9. A significant minority of importers reported that factors other than price are frequently

or always important to such purchasers. Id.

 117 See CR at II-21, V-4-5. 

18

non-subject imports, which lost ***.110 As subject imports displaced domestic certain PSF from the U.S.

market, the ratio of subject imports to domestic production also increased significantly, from *** percent

in 2004, to *** percent in 2005, and to *** percent in 2006.111

We therefore find that subject import volume is significant, both in absolute terms and relative to

consumption and production in the United States, and that the increase in subject import volume also is

significant.

C. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

 Section 771(C)(ii) of the Act provides that, in evaluating the price effects of subject imports, 

the Commission shall consider whether – 

(I) there has been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as

compared with the price of domestic like products of the United States, and

(II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a

significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.112

The record indicates that subject imports and the domestic like product possess a “moderate-tohigh” degree of interchangeability, as detailed in the conditions of competition section above. Purchasers

reported that subject imports and the domestic like product were generally comparable with respect to a

list of product attributes, with subject imports offering lower prices and the domestic like product offering

superior delivery times.113 Most of the 53 producers, importers, and purchasers that responded to the

Commission’s question on interchangeability reported that subject imports and the domestic like product

are interchangeable “sometimes” (26 questionnaire responses), “frequently” (16 responses), or “always”

(seven responses).114

The record also indicates that price is an important factor for purchasers in selecting a certain PSF

supplier. Most purchasers reported that price is “very important” to their purchasing decisions -- the first

or second most important factor – and most reported sometimes or usually purchasing the lowest-priced

certain PSF.115 Most producers and importers reported that factors other than price were either never, or

only sometimes, significant to purchasers choosing between subject imports and the domestic like

product.116 Moreover, the prevalence of spot sales and short-term contracts in the U.S. market for certain

PSF indicates that many purchasers can easily switch suppliers due to price or other considerations.117

The Commission collected quarterly pricing data on five PSF products, and received usable data

from seven producers, accounting for 74 percent of domestic producer shipments in 2006, and 14
 118 CR at V-5-6; PR at V-5.

 119 CR/PR at Table V-6. Consolidated argues that underselling margins for products 1 and 2, which include both

regenerated PSF and virgin PSF, were artificially inflated because most subject import shipments consisted of

regenerated PSF, which they allege to be lower-priced due to the lower cost of regenerated inputs, and most

domestic shipments consisted of virgin PSF, which they allege to be higher-priced due to the higher cost of virgin

inputs. Consolidated Final Comments at 4-5. The statute, however, requires the Commission to assess whether

imports are being sold by importers in the U.S. market at lower prices than the domestic like product, not to compare

the cost of production of foreign producers with the cost of production in the United States. See 19 U.S.C. §

1677(7)(C)(ii). Further, Consolidated’s contention that regenerated PSF is cheaper to produce than virgin PSF is

belied by the cost of inputs reported by domestic producers, which indicate that regenerated inputs may cost more or

less than virgin inputs depending upon the ratio of MEG to PTA used to produce virgin PSF, and Wellman’s

decision to close its dedicated regenerated PSF production facility in Johnsonville in late 2006. See CR at III-3 &

n.13; PR at III-3 & n.13; CR/PR at Table VI-3. Indeed, the Commission collected separate pricing data on virgin

PSF and regenerated PSF in the preliminary phase investigation, and found that the pattern of subject import

underselling was similar whether the data were considered on an aggregated or dis-aggregated basis. See

Preliminary Determination, Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1104 (Preliminary), USITC

Pub. 3878 (August 2006) at 11 n.54. 

 120 See CR/PR at Tables V-1-5, Figures V-3-7.

 121 We note that U.S. apparent consumption declined 7.4 percent later in the period of investigation, from 1.15

billion pounds in 2005 to 1.07 billion pounds in 2006, but as discussed earlier, subject import volume increased ***

percent from 2005 to 2006, while demand was declining. See CR/PR at Table C-1.

 122 See CR at V-1;PR at V-1; CR/PR at Figure V-1; see also id. at Table VI-3 (domestic producers reported that,

between 2004 and 2006, their per pound cost of raw materials increased 32 percent with respect to MEG, 32 percent

with respect to PTA, and 24 percent with respect to scrap). 

 123 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 21; see also Hearing Tr. at 71, 94 (McNaull); CR/PR at Table VI-1.

19

importers, accounting for 17.1 percent of subject import shipments in 2006.118 These data indicate that

subject imports generally undersold the domestic like product with respect to all five products throughout

the period of investigation, but particularly in 2005 and 2006. 

Between 2004 and 2006, subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 37 of 54

comparisons, or 68.5 percent of the time, at margins ranging from 0.8 percent to 43.4 percent.119 The

frequency of subject import underselling and underselling margins generally increased in 2005 and 2006,

with underselling occurring in 33 of 38 comparisons, or 86.8 percent of the time, at margins ranging from

0.8 percent to 43.4 percent.120 We find subject import underselling to be significant. 

Although domestic prices generally increased in 2005 and 2006, we find that subject imports

suppressed domestic prices, preventing price increases that otherwise would have occurred due to

escalating raw material costs.121 Prices for the raw material inputs for virgin PSF, petroleum-based

monoethylene glycol (“MEG”) and purified terephthalic acid (“PTA”), and regenerated PSF, postindustrial and post-consumer waste, increased significantly in 2005 and 2006, largely as as a result of

increasing oil prices and the 2005 hurricanes.122 

The resulting increase in the domestic producers’ unit raw material costs, from $0.49 per pound

in 2005 to $0.52 per pound in 2006, was partly responsible for the 7.5 percent increase in their unit cost

of goods sold (“COGS”), from $0.67 per pound in 2005 to $0.72 per pound in 2006. Because the AUV of

domestic industry net sales increased only 2.8 percent, from $0.71 in 2005 to $0.73 in 2006, the ratio of

domestic industry COGS to net sales increased from 95.2 percent in 2005 to 98.4 percent in 2006,

contributing to a decline in domestic industry operating income per unit from $0.01 per pound in 2005 to

-$0.01 per pound in 2006.123 We do acknowledge that the ratio of domestic industry COGS to net sales

was higher in 2004, at 100.8 percent. On balance, however, we find that pricing pressure from subject
 124 Petitioners claimed that price hikes announced in 2004 had to be retracted due to subject import competition,

Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 23, and testified at the hearing that customers would not accept price hikes in 2006

even though they understood that the hikes would “strictly pass through” higher raw material costs. Hearing Tr. at

71, 94-95 (McNaull), 71 (Katz). 

 125 See CR at Table V-7.

 126 See Purchasers’ Questionnaire Responses of ***.

 127 In its final determination, Commerce found weighted-average dumping margins for specific Chinese exporters

ranging from 3.47 to 4.86 percent, an all others rate of 4.44 percent, and a PRC wide rate of 44.30 percent. CR at I5; PR at I-5; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical

Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of China, 72 Fed. Reg. 19693 (April 16,

2007). Consolidated and Insituform argue that the magnitude of the antidumping margins found by Commerce

indicate that subject imports could not have materially injured the domestic industry. See Consolidated Final

Comments at 1-2; Insituform’s Comments Regarding Final Dumping Determination at 1, 5; Insituform’s Posthearing

Brief at 8. Consistent with the statute, the SAA, and court precedent, the Commission’s practice is to “consider the

impact of the subject imports and not the effect of the dumping or subsidies.” See Softwood Lumber from Canada,

Inv. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928 (Final), USITC Pub. 3509 (May 2002) at 30, also citing, at 21, Titanium

Metal Corp. v. United States, 155 F.Supp.2d 750, 757 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“The statutory language does not

‘require that ITC demonstrate the dumped imports, through the effects of particular margins of dumping, are causing

injury. Rather, ITC must examine the effects of imports of a class or kind of merchandise which is found to be sold

at LTFV and make its conclusion about causation accordingly.”) (quoting Iwatsu Elec. Co. v. United States, 758

F.Supp. 1506, 1510 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1991)); see also Certain Frozen or Canned Warm water Shrimp and Prawns from

Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1063-68 (Final), USITC Pub. 3748

(January 2005) at 38-39 (citing to Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 688 F.Supp. 639, 645 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988),

aff’d, 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“Our reviewing court, however, has stated that ‘Congress has not simply

directed ITC to determine directly if dumping itself is causing injury.”) and also noting “the statutory directive” that

the Commission ascertain the impact of the dumping imports). Accordingly, we have considered the magnitude of

the dumping margins found by Commerce, but do not find them conclusive for our analysis of impact. 

 128 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, the Commission

considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in

(continued...)

20

import underselling contributed to the domestic producers’ inability to increase prices in tandem with raw

material costs, particularly later in the period of investigation.124

We note that the principal adverse impact of subject imports on the domestic industry was the

13.3 percentage point market share shift from domestic producers to subject imports over the period of

investigation. Underselling by subject imports was a key factor in this shift in market share. As

discussed earlier, there is a “moderate-to-high” degree of interchangeability between subject imports and

the domestic like product, price is important to purchasing decisions, and spot and short-term contract

sales are prevalent in the certain PSF market. Confirmed lost sales totaling *** million pounds, valued at

$*** million, provide additional support for our finding that subject imports have taken sales from U.S.

producers and have suppressed prices.125 Moreover, five purchaser questionnaire responses reported

increased purchases of subject imports due to their low price.126

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the subject imports have had significant adverse price

effects on the domestic industry.

D. Impact of the Subject Imports127

Section 771(7)(C)(iii) provides that the Commission, in examining the impact of the subject

imports on the domestic industry, “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on

the state of the industry.”128 These factors include output, sales, inventories, capacity utilization, market
 128 (...continued)

some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they also may demonstrate that an industry is facing

difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”). SAA at 885.

 129 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-

TA-386, 731-TA-812-813 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 at 25 n.148 (Feb. 1999).

 130 See CR/PR at Table IV-5, 6. We are unpersuaded by respondents’ argument that domestic producers,

specifically ***, injured themselves by increasing their own imports of certain PSF from China and non-subject

countries over the period of investigation. See Insituform Prehearing Brief at 14; Consolidated Final Comments at 9. 

Although Insituform attributes *** imports of certain PSF from China to *** due to ***, ***, not ***, was the

importer of record and the extent to which *** controlled or benefitted from *** subject imports is unclear. See CR

at III-14; PR at III-9. That *** supports the antidumping petition suggests that its interest in *** subject imports is

negligible. See CR/PR at Table III-1. *** imports from non-subject countries, though substantial, accounted for

only *** percent of non-subject import volume in 2006. See id. at Tables III-7 (*** non-subject imports totaled ***

million pounds in 2006) and C-1 (non-subject import volume was 364.4 million pounds in 2006). 

 131 CR/PR at Tables VI-5-6.

 132 CR/PR at Tables III-5, VI-1. Domestic industry inventories increased 19.2 percent over the period, from

35,984 pounds in 2004, or 4.9 percent of total shipments, to 36,520 pounds in 2005, or 5.6 percent of total

shipments, and to 42,901 pounds in 2006, or 7.6 percent of total shipments. CR/PR at Table III-8.

 133 CR/PR at Table III-2.

 134 CR at III-3; PR at III-1-2. According to PCI, an industry publication, *** Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 26.

 135 CR at III-3; PR at III-1.

21

share, employment, wages, productivity, profits, cash flow, return on investment, ability to raise capital,

research and development, and factors affecting domestic prices. No single factor is dispositive and all

relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition

that are distinctive to the affected industry.”129

We find that subject imports had a significant adverse impact on the condition of the domestic

industry over the period of investigation. Subject import volume increased almost *** percent over the

period of investigation to capture 13.3 percentage points of market share, out of a total market share gain

of *** percentage points, at the domestic industry’s expense. By contrast, generally higher-priced nonsubject imports lost *** percentage point of market share over the period, as non-subject import volume

declined by *** percent.130 Due to the domestic industry’s substantial loss of market share to subject

imports, and secondarily to price suppression, the industry experienced declines in almost every statutory

performance measure in 2006. 

The domestic industry’s share of U.S. apparent consumption declined from 60.2 percent in 2004

to 52.3 percent in 2005, and to 46.9 percent in 2006, as U.S. shipments declined 26.4 percent during the

period of investigation, from 679.8 million pounds in 2004 to 603.0 million pounds in 2005, and to 500.2

million pounds in 2006.131 The domestic industry’s net sales quantity declined by 24.0 percent over the

period from 728.0 million pounds in 2004, to 642.8 million pounds in 2005, and to 553.3 million pounds

in 2006.132 

As sales declined over the period, the domestic industry reduced its capacity by 12.9 percent,

from 889.6 million pounds in 2004 to 843.6 million pounds in 2005, and to 774.9 million pounds in

2006.133 In particular, *** ceased production of certain PSF at its *** and reduced certain PSF capacity

by 33 percent at its ***, and Wellman removed 80 million pounds of capacity from its Johnsonville plant

before closing the plant entirely in December 2006.134 Nan Ya shut down its conjugate PSF line in June

2006, reportedly due to low-priced subject import competition, and only restarted it after the petition’s

filing in June 2006.135 Record information does not capture the full extent of domestic industry capacity
 136 CR at III-1 n.4; PR at III-1 n.4.

 137 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 30 (Katz) (“Wellman has made a concerted effort to reduce its expenses and remain

competitive through cost cutting measures, including a reduction in the levels of management, plant closings and

employee layoffs.”).

 138 CR/PR at Table III-2.

 139 CR/PR at Table III-2.

 140 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at 8-9; Hearing Tr. at 84 (Chandrl), 84-85 (McNaull), 86-97 (Katz). Given the

domestic industry’s need to maintain minimum staffing levels, we are unconvinced by Insituform’s argument that

domestic producers injured themselves by allowing their labor productivity to deteriorate. Insituform Posthearing

Brief at 14; Hearing Tr. at 13 (Shapiro). Domestic producers acted to restructure their operations over the period of

investigation, reducing capacity by 12.9 percent, but were unable to compensate for their rapid loss of market share

and production volume. CR/PR at Table III-2. 

 141 CR/PR at Table III-9; Hearing Tr. at 29, 87-88 (Katz) (Johnsonville’s closure resulted in 360 layoffs).

 142 CR/PR at Table III-9.

 143 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 144 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 145 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

22

reductions, because *** declared bankruptcy in early 2006 and therefore did not complete a domestic

producers’ questionnaire.136

Notwithstanding its efforts to bring capacity in line with falling sales,137 the domestic industry

suffered declining capacity utilization rates as production declined by an even greater 21.9 percent over

the period of investigation, from 733.7 million pounds in 2004, to 657.1 million pounds in 2005, and to

573.1 million pounds in 2006.138 Accordingly, the domestic industry’s capacity utilization rate declined

from 82.5 percent in 2004 to 77.9 percent in 2005, and to 73.9 percent in 2006.139 

The domestic industry’s deteriorating capacity utilization rate drove up the industry’s fixed costs

per unit, given high capital and energy costs. Low capacity utilization also depressed the industry’s labor

productivity, which declined from 316.6 pounds per hour in 2004 to 294.1 pounds per hour in 2005, and

to 268.6 pounds per hour in 2006, as domestic producers were compelled to maintain minimum staffing

levels even as production declined.140 As production declined 21.9 percent over the period of

investigation, hours worked declined only 10.2 percent and the average number of domestic industry

production related workers (“PRWs”) declined only 12.5 percent, from 1,106 in 2004, to 1,001 in 2005,

and to 968 in 2006, excluding *** presumed layoffs and Wellman’s closure of its Johnsonville plant in

December 2006, which resulted in 360 layoffs.141 Wages paid declined from $40.0 million in 2004 to

$39.6 million in 2005, and to $37.1 million in 2006.142

The domestic industry’s financial performance generally reflected its deteriorating operating

performance, particularly in 2006. The domestic industry’s net sales value increased 7.4 percent between

2004 and 2005, from $422.8 million to $454.1 million, before declining 11.0 percent between 2005 and

2006, to $404.2 million, for an overall decline of 4.4 percent over the period.143 Net sales value declined

at a lower rate than net sales volume because the AUV of net sales increased throughout the period, from

$0.58 per pound in 2004 to $0.71 per pound in 2005, and to $0.73 per pound in 2006.144 Because the

AUV of domestic industry shipments increased faster than unit COGS between 2004 and 2005, the

domestic industry’s operating loss of $15.3 million in 2004, or negative 3.6 percent of sales, turned into a

slight operating profit of $8.6 million in 2005, or 1.9 percent of sales.145 The domestic industry’s
 146 See CR/PR at Figures V-3-7.

 147 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 148 We are unpersuaded by Insituform’s argument that the domestic industry is not suffering present material

injury, based upon the industry’s positive gross profit in 2006 and narrowed operating loss between 2004 and 2006. 

Insituform Prehearing Brief at 13-14; Insituform Posthearing Brief at 11. The domestic PSF industry’s weak

operating profits in 2005 turned to operating losses in 2006. CR/PR at Table VI-1. Furthermore, our finding of

present material injury is bolstered by the significant decline in most every other domestic industry operating and

financial indicator over the period of investigation. 

 149 See CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 150 CR/PR at Table VI-5.

 151 CR/PR at Table VI-5.

 152 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 153 Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun add that given that the primary cause of material injury to the

domestic industry was the loss of volume caused by low-priced subject imports, this suggests that non-subject

imports were not a factor affecting volume, and to a lesser degree were not a factor affecting prices. This pattern

further indicates that subject imports were a significant factor in the domestic industry’s declining production and

sales over the period of investigation. Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun note that this finding is consistent

with the Commission’s vulnerability finding in the recent five-year reviews of the orders on Korea and Taiwan. In

(continued...)

23

improved results in 2005 partly reflected demand growth and a spike in certain PSF prices in the fourth

quarter of 2005, which coincided with shortages caused by the hurricanes.146

This situation was reversed in 2006, however, as the domestic industry was unable to increase its

prices sufficiently to compensate for higher raw material costs, and its capacity utilization rate continued

to decline. That year, the domestic industry suffered an operating loss of $5.4 million, or negative 1.3

percent of sales.147 We conclude from the evidence of record that subject imports had a causal connection

to the injury experienced by the domestic industry, particularly in 2006. In particular, subject imports

greatly increased their market share, at the domestic industry’s expense, in an environment of declining

demand, thereby depressing domestic industry sales, production, and capacity utilization.148 The domestic

industry’s declining capacity utilization contributed to its $*** per unit, or *** percent, increase in unit

labor and other factory costs over the period of investigation, which reduced the industry’s operating

income by a commensurate amount.149 In addition, there was price suppression by subject imports,

particularly in 2006.

The domestic industry’s return on investment tracked its profitability, increasing from -6.5

percent in 2004 to 4.1 percent in 2005, before declining to -3.4 percent in 2006. Domestic industry

capital expenditures and research and development spending, however, were inversely related to

profitability. Capital expenditures declined from $2.0 million in 2004 to $1.2 million in 2005, before

rebounding to $1.5 million in 2006, a level still 27.5 percent lower than in 2004.150 Research and

development spending declined from $1.8 million in 2004 in 2004 to $*** million in 2005, but returned

to $1.8 million in 2006.151 In sum, the record shows that subject imports are having a negative impact on

the condition of the domestic industry.

Non-subject imports were in the U.S. market throughout the period of investigation. However,

non-subject import volume declined throughout the period of investigation.152 Likewise, the AUV and

pricing data on the record show that the prices of the non-subject imports typically are higher than those

for subject imports. The primary cause of material injury to the domestic industry was the loss of volume,

in terms of U.S. shipments and market share, which was caused by the rapid increase in volume of lowpriced subject imports. This is in contrast to non-subject imports, which decreased in volume and market

share over the period of investigation.153
 153 (...continued)

those reviews, the Commission found that the domestic industry was vulnerable “by intensified competition from

low-priced Chinese non-subject imports over the POR, . . .” Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea and Taiwan,

Inv. Nos. 731-TA-825-826 (Review), USITC Pub. 3843 at 31 (Mar. 2006).

 154 444 F.3d at 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

 155 Bratsk, 444 F.3d at 1375.

 156 Bratsk, 444 F.3d at 1375.

 157 For a full discussion of our views on the applicability of Bratsk, see our Views in the Remand Determination

for Silicon Metal from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-991 (Final) (Second Remand), USITC Pub. 3910 (March 2007). 

For a full discussion of Chairman Pearson’s views on the applicability of Bratsk, see his Separate and Additional

Views in Silicon Metal from Russia. For a full discussion of Vice Chairman Aranoff’s views on the applicability of

Bratsk, see the Views of the Commission in Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago,

Inv. No. 731-TA-961 (Final) (Remand). For a full discussion of Commissioner Okun’s views of the applicability of

Bratsk, see her Separate and Dissenting Views in Certain Lined Paper School Supplies from China, India, and

Indonesia, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-442-443, 731-TA-1095-1097 (Final), USITC Pub. 3884 (Sept. 2006).

 158 See SAA at 851-52, 885.

 159 H.R. Rep. No. 317, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. at 47 (“Any such requirement has the undesirable result of making

relief more difficult to obtain for those industries facing difficulties from a variety of sources, precisely those

industries that are most vulnerable to subsidized or dumped imports.”).

24

Based on the reasons stated above, we conclude that an industry in the United States is materially

injured by reason of subject imports of certain PSF from China found to be sold in the United States at

less than fair value. 

V. Application of the Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States Replacement/Benefit Test

Having reached an affirmative determination by application of the statutorily mandated factors,

the Federal Circuit’s decision in Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States requires that we turn to an

additional analysis which can, in some circumstances, negate an affirmative determination.154 The

Federal Circuit directed the Commission to undertake an “additional causation inquiry” whenever certain

triggering factors are met: “whenever the antidumping investigation is centered on a commodity product,

and price competitive non-subject imports are a significant factor in the market.”155 The additional

inquiry required by the Bratsk panel, which we refer to as the Bratsk replacement/benefit test, is “whether

non-subject imports would have replaced the subject imports without any beneficial effect on domestic

producers.”156

We respectfully disagree with the Bratsk panel that the statute requires any analysis beyond that

already included in our discussion of volume, price, and impact above.157 The statutory scheme 

contemplates that an industry may be facing difficulties from a variety of sources, including non-subject

imports and other factors, but the existence of injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative

determination if the subject imports themselves are making more than a minimal or tangential

contribution to material injury.158 The legislative history further clarifies that the dumped imports need

not be the “principal” cause of material injury and that the “by reason of” standard does not contemplate

that injury from dumped imports be weighed against injury from other factors, such as non-subject

imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.159 Thus, once the Commission

establishes the existence of a causal link between subject imports and material injury, the existence of

other concurrent causes is legally irrelevant to its determination.

Similarly, the statute does not permit the Commission to reach a negative determination based on

the likely ineffectiveness of an order. Indeed, the purpose of the statute is not to bar or eliminate subject

imports from the U.S. market or award subject import market share to U.S. producers, but is meant
 160 Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

 161 SAA at 883-85, 889-90.

 162 Wooden Bedroom Furniture From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1058 (Final), USITC Pub. 3742 (Dec. 2004) at 27,

n. 222.

 163 See Silicon Metal from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-991 (Second Remand), USITC Pub. 3910 (Mar. 2007), at 3-

8 (articulating in detail the Commission’s long-standing interpretation of the “by reason of” causation standard).

 164 Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun discern two possible interpretations of the Bratsk opinion, which

differ substantially. The so-called “replacement/benefit test” is noted above. The second one is that Bratsk is an

elaboration of the causation analysis prescribed by Gerald Metals. Under this interpretation, the Bratsk decision

stands to remind the Commission of its obligation under Gerald Metals that the Commission may not satisfy the “by

reason of” causation requirement by showing that subject imports contributed only “minimally or tangentially to the

material harm.” In other words, the Bratsk Court’s relatively short discussion of the underlying determination may

not have established a new and rigid replacement/benefit test. Rather, the Court may have discussed the triggering

factors as a reminder that the Commission, before it makes an affirmative determination, must satisfy itself that it has

not attributed material injury to factors other than subject imports. See Separate and Additional Views of Chairman

Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun Concerning Bratsk Aluminum v. United States in,

Sodium Hexametaphosphate from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1110 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3912 (April 2007). This

analysis is included in the Commission’s affirmative causation analysis.

 165 Bratsk, 444 F.3d at 11. 

 166 Vice Chairman Aranoff and Commissioner Williamson, having considered this argument during the course of

other investigations, remain unpersuaded that the plain language of the Bratsk decision can be so interpreted. The

Commission, addressing a similar contention by respondent Caribbean Ispat in the remand of Carbon and Certain

Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, stated that:

a much broader reading is more consistent with the language employed by the Bratsk panel . . . . In light of

the Federal Circuit’s express concern in Bratsk that the Commission was too narrowly interpreting the

Court’s previous holding in Gerald Metals . . . we view it as prudent to take the Court at its word and not

attempt to construe narrowly its intent.

(continued...)

25

instead to “level [] competitive conditions” by imposing a duty on subject imports and thus enabling the

domestic industry to compete against fairly traded imports.160 The statutory scheme in fact contemplates

that subject imports may remain in the U.S. market after an order is imposed and even that the industry

afterwards may continue to suffer material injury.161 As the Commission has previously explained,

[N]othing in the statute or case law requires (or allows) us to consider the likely

effectiveness of a dumping order in making our injury determination. The

possibility that non-subject imports will increase in the future after an

antidumping order is imposed is ... not relevant to our analysis of whether

subject imports are currently materially injuring the industry.162

The Commission has a well established approach to addressing causation.163 However, we apply

the Bratsk replacement/benefit test to our analysis because the Federal Circuit has directed us to do so,

notwithstanding that, in our considered view, this test is not required by, or consistent with, the statute.164

The Bratsk analysis “is triggered whenever the antidumping investigation is centered on a

commodity product, and price competitive non-subject imports are a significant factor in the market.”165

As a threshold matter, Petitioners argue that the Bratsk replacement/benefit analysis is not required under

the statute, and that Bratsk should be interpreted as an elaboration of the causation standard articulated

under Gerald Metals.

166 167 In the alternative, Petitioners argue that neither of the triggering factors are
 166 (...continued)

The Commission further stated:

We do not believe that the Federal Circuit’s remand in this case, nor Bratsk itself, can be read as narrowly

as Caribbean Ispat suggests . . . . In this case, the Federal Circuit and the CIT have explicitly directed the

Commission to “address whether [other LTFV imports and/or fairly traded imports] would have replaced

[Trinidad and Tobago’s] imports without any beneficial effect on domestic producers.” Caribbean Ispat v.

United States, Slip Op. 06-151 (Ct. Int’l Trade, Oct. 13, 2006) . . . at 1, quoting Caribbean Ispat, 450 F.3d at

1341 and Bratsk 444 F.3d at 1375. The CIT, moreover, has already remanded another case to the

Commission on the basis that, while the Commission had met the Federal Circuit’s requirements under

Gerald Metals . . . it had failed to apply the additional Bratsk replacement/benefit test. See Sichuan

Changhong Electric Co. v. United States, Slip. Op. 06-168 (Ct. Int’l Trade Nov. 15, 2006) at 17-18, 23-26.

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, Inv. No. 731-TA-961 (Final) (Remand),

USITC Pub. 3903 (Jan. 2007), p. 14 and n.77. See Silicon Metal from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-991 (Second

Remand), USITC Pub. 3910 (Mar. 2007); Certain Lined School Paper Supplies from China, India, and Indonesia,

Inv. Nos. 701-TA-442-443 and 731-TA-1095-1097 (Final), USITC Pub. 3884 (September 2006).

 167 Commissioner Pinkert agrees with the preceding footnote to the extent that it rejects an interpretation of

Bratsk that ignores the Bratsk panel’s direction to the Commission to address extra-statutory factors. See Bratsk,

444 F.3d at 1375.

 168 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 32-34; Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at 13; Responses to Commissioner

Questions at 12. Petitioners also argue that the Commission should apply a stricter fungibility standard in the Bratsk

context than in the causation context. Id.

 169 See Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 35-37; Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at 13; Hearing Tr. at 54-55

(Cannon).

 170 See Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 37-43; Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at 14; Petitioners’ Responses to

Commissioner Questions at 32-34; Hearing Tr. at 55-57 (Cannon).

 171 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 43; Hearing Tr. at 57 (Cannon).

 172 Ashley Posthearing Brief at 8. No other respondent in this final phase investigation addressed the Bratsk test. 

CR at VII-17; PR at VII-10.

26

met. Petitioners state that certain PSF is not a commodity product because not all types of certain PSF are

interchangeable or are sold solely on the basis of price,168 and non-subject imports are not price

competitive with subject imports given their generally higher prices and the existence of antidumping

duty orders constraining non-subject imports from Korea and Taiwan.169 No respondent addressed the

question of whether the Bratsk triggers are met. 

If both Bratsk triggering factors are satisfied, we apply the “replacement/benefit” test required

under Bratsk to determine whether non-subject imports could replace subject imports with no benefit to

the domestic industry. Petitioners argue that even if the Commission were to find the Bratsk triggering

factors satisfied, non-subject imports could not replace subject imports, largely due to capacity

limitations,170 and the domestic industry would benefit from the imposition of an antidumping duty order

on subject imports regardless, given the generally higher prices of non-subject imports.171 Ashley, the

only respondent to address the replacement/benefit test, argues that non-subject imports would completely

replace subject imports were an antidumping duty order imposed on PSF from China.172

We find that both of the Bratsk triggers are satisfied here, and that non-subject imports would

have replaced subject imports to a certain extent during the period of investigation. We also find,

however, that the replacement, whether partial or complete, of subject imports by non-subject imports

would have benefitted the domestic industry. The higher prices of most non-subject imports would likely

have permitted domestic producers to raise their prices and gain market share.
 173 CR at II-11; PR at II-7-8.

 174 See Hearing Tr. at 39 (Magrath).

 175 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 50-52 (Cannon).

 176 We note that it is improper to assume that simply because goods are generally interchangeable for purposes of

the “reasonable overlap of competition” analysis for cumulation, or are interchangeable for purposes of defining the

domestic like product, that they are necessarily “commodities” for purposes of assessing causation, which is the

function of the Bratsk-“test.” See Silicon Metal from Russia, USITC Pub. 3910 at 10-11 (footnotes omitted) , citing

BIC Corp. v. United States, 964 F. Supp. 391, 397, 399 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1997) ([L]ike product, cumulation and

causation are functionally different inquiries because they serve different statutory purposes . . . . As a result, each

inquiry requires a different level of fungibility. Hence the record may contain substantial evidence that two products

are fungible enough to support a finding in one context (e.g., one like product), but not in another (e.g., cumulation

or causation.”)). In the remand for Silicon Metal, however, the Commission applied the Federal Circuit’s “apparent

assumption” that the triggering factors were satisfied in that case. By contrast, in Activated Carbon from China, the

Commission found that non-subject imported activated carbon made from coconut shells was not generally

interchangeable with domestic and subject imported activated carbon, made from coal. Inv. No. 731-TA-1103,

USITC Pub. 3913 (April 2007) at 26, n. 163.

 177 See CR/PR at Table IV-5, 6.

 178 CR at II-11; PR at II-7-8.

27

A. The First Triggering Factor: Whether Certain PSF Is a Commodity Product

We find that certain PSF qualifies as a commodity product based upon the Bratsk panel’s

definition of “commodity product” as “meaning that it is generally interchangeable regardless of its

source.” Petitioners’ argument that the Commission should consider certain PSF a commodity product

except for purposes of its Bratsk analysis is not supported by the evidence. There is “a moderate-to-high

degree of substitution” between the domestic like product and subject imports and between the domestic

like product and non-subject imports,173 based on the record evidence detailed above. At the hearing,

petitioners’ own economist testified that “the staff report's finding of moderate-to-high substitutability is

well grounded, even maybe a little bit understated.”174 Petitioners cite respondents’ like product

arguments as evidence that certain PSF is not a commodity product, yet argue that all certain PSF,

including conjugate PSF and CIPP PSF, is generally substitutable.175 Though not all types of certain PSF

are perfectly substitutable, given the significant degree of substitutability among the most common types

of certain PSF we find that for purposes of our Bratsk analysis certain PSF is a commodity product.176

B. The Second Triggering Factor: Whether Price Competitive Non-subject Imports

Are a Significant Factor in the Market

We find that price competitive non-subject imports are a significant factor in the market based on

the significant market share held by non-subject imports, their moderate-to-high degree of substitutability

with subject imports and the domestic like product, and their competitive prices in a price-sensitive

market.

First, non-subject import market share remained significant, and higher than subject import

market share, throughout the period of investigation. The share of U.S. apparent consumption comprised

of non-subject imports was *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, and *** percent in 2006, while the

share comprised of subject imports was *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, and *** percent in

2006.177

Second, non-subject imports were generally substitutable with subject imports and the domestic

like product.178 One-half or more of purchasers reported that non-subject imports are comparable to the
 179 See CR at II-17-18; PR at II-12-13; CR/PR at Table II-7.

 180 See CR at II-23; PR at II-16; CR/PR at Table II-8.

 181 When asked to identify the three major factors considered in selecting a certain PSF supplier, purchasers

ranked price among their top three factors more than any other factor, though price was ranked as the most important

factor only half as often as quality. CR at II-15-16; PR at II-10-11; CR/PR at Table II-5. Of 38 responding

purchasers, 15 reported that they always or usually purchase the lowest-priced certain PSF, 18 purchasers reported

sometimes purchasing the lowest-priced certain PSF, and 5 reported never purchasing the lowest-priced certain PSF. 

CR at II-16; PR at II-11.

 182 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 183 See CR/PR at Appendix E. Non-subject imports generally undersold the domestic like product with respect to

products 1-4, though not with the same frequency as subject imports, and generally oversold the domestic like

product with respect to product 5. See id.

 184 In determining whether non-subject imports are price competitive in this investigation, Commissioner Pinkert

has primarily analyzed whether non-subject imports are price competitive with the domestic like product, although

he has also taken into account relative pricing levels for non-subject and subject imports.

 185 Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun note the exact formulation of the Bratsk Court’s test is not clear. 

According to one part of the Bratsk opinion:

{U}nder Gerald Metals, the Commission is required to make a specific causation determination

and in that connection to directly address whether non-subject imports would have replaced the

subject imports without any beneficial effect on domestic producers.

Bratsk, 444 F.3d at 1375. Stated this way, the test would require the Commission to analyze replacement/benefit

during the period of investigation, i.e., backward looking. The Court also has stated a different formulation that

would require the Commission to analyze replacement/benefit in the future, i.e., forward looking:

{T}he Commission has to explain, in a meaningful way, why the non-subject imports would not

replace the subject imports and continue to cause injury to the domestic industry.

Bratsk, 444 F.3d at 1376. It therefore is unclear whether the Court intended to state the same test in different ways,

or whether it contemplated that it was establishing two separate criteria. We conclude that Bratsk may require either

(continued...)

28

domestic like product with respect to 16 product attributes.179 All producers, and a majority of importers

and purchasers, reported that non-subject imports, subject imports, and the domestic like product are

always, frequently, or sometimes interchangeable.180 

Finally, non-subject imports were priced competitively with respect to subject imports and the

domestic like product in the U.S. market, and price is an important consideration for purchasers of certain

PSF.181 Non-subject import average unit values, at $*** in 2004, $*** in 2005, and $*** in 2006, were

higher than those of subject imports, at $*** in 2004, $*** in 2005, and $*** in 2006, but lower than

those of the domestic like product, at $0.58 in 2004, $0.71 in 2005, and $0.74 in 2006.182 Pricing data on

non-subject imports from India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam

confirm that non-subject imports were priced competitively relative to the domestic like product.183 184 

We therefore conclude that non-subject imports are “price competitive” in the U.S. market and a

significant presence in the U.S. market.

C. The Replacement/Benefit Test

Having found both Bratsk triggers satisfied, we consider whether non-subject imports would have

replaced subject imports over the period of investigation without any benefit to the domestic industry.185
 185 (...continued)

a backward-looking or a forward-looking analysis depending on the facts (e.g., in the threat context). Thus, we join

the Commission’s backward-looking approach and note that we reach the same conclusions analyzing whether nonsubject imports are likely to replace subject imports and continue to cause injury to the domestic industry.

 186 Absent comprehensive public data on non-subject certain PSF production, capacity, and prices, we must seek

data relevant to the Bratsk replacement/benefit issues by requesting information directly from foreign producers and

U.S. embassies in relevant countries. We sent questionnaires to 25 non-subject foreign producers in seven nonsubject countries, accounting for 90 percent of non-subject imports in 2005. CR at VII-17; PR at VII-10-11. We

note that Commission staff and U.S. embassies, to the extent that they had the resources to assist the Commission,

encountered difficulties in obtaining information on the PSF industries in non-subject countries. Only six of the 25

foreign producers in non-subject countries that received questionnaires completed them. See CR at VII-17; PR at

VII-10-11. Accordingly, we have limited information on the foreign producers of certain PSF in Germany, India,

Indonesia, Mexico, and Thailand, and more detailed information on non-subject imports from China. In addition,

certain information collected in the recent five-year reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain PSF from

Korea and Taiwan was placed on the record of this final phase investigation. 

 187 CR/PR at Table VII-18. Taiwan producers reported capacity utilization of *** percent for full year 2004. Id.

 188 CR at VII-31; PR at VII-20. The Taiwan Man-made Fiber Industries Association projects continued declines

in production, capacity, and supply volume in 2007 and 2008, and these trends are consistent with reports that

Taiwan PSF producers are increasingly shifting their PSF production from Taiwan to other Asian countries. See id.

 189 CR at VII-31; PR at VII-20; CR/PR at Table VII-19. Export data were available only at the 6-digit level for

our examination and therefore include non-subject product.

29

We find that although non-subject imports would have replaced subject imports to a certain extent, the

domestic industry would still have benefitted from the elimination of subject imports from the U.S.

market. 

1. Whether Non-Subject Imports Would Have Replaced Subject Imports

Record information on foreign producers in non-subject countries suggests that non-subject

producers could have increased their exports to the United States over the period of investigation to a

certain extent had subject imports vanished from the U.S. market.186 Of the largest non-subject industries

for which data are available, the record suggests that the PSF industries in Taiwan and Thailand may have

possessed excess capacity, though imports from Taiwan would have been constrained by the antidumping

duty order imposed in 1999. The relatively large PSF industry in Korea and the non-subject PSF

producer in China would have been constrained from increasing their exports to the United States by high

capacity utilization rates and in the case of Korea, by an antidumping duty order imposed in 2000.

 The record indicates that Taiwan producers may have possessed excess capacity. In the fiveyear review of the antidumping duty order on PSF from Taiwan, Taiwan producers reported that their

capacity utilization rate for certain PSF declined from *** percent in the January-September 2004 period

to *** percent in the January-September 2005 period, leaving unused capacity of *** million pounds.187

The American Institute in Taiwan reports that Taiwan’s production capacity for all PSF products declined

from 2.0 billion pounds in 2004 to 1.89 billion pounds in 2006, as capacity utilization declined from 96

percent to 75 percent over the same period.188 Record data in this investigation indicate that Taiwan

producers are export oriented, with worldwide exports of 1.1 billion pounds in 2006 compared to an

estimated 1.4 billion pounds of production that year,189 although information with regard to Taiwan

producers’ historical shipment trends or long-term contractual obligations was not made available during

the time frame of this investigation. 

Other factors suggest that Taiwan producers would have had limited incentives or interest in

increasing exports to the United States. Taiwan AUVs were significantly higher than those of subject
 190 CR/PR at Table C-1 (the AUVs of non-subject imports from Taiwan were $0.60 in 2004, $0.68 in 2005, and

$0.66 in 2006).

 191 CR/PR at Table IV-6 (non-subject import volume from Taiwan declined from 72.4 million pounds in 2004 to

37.5 million pounds in 2006, while Taiwan non-subject import market share declined from 6.4 percent to 3.5

percent).

 192 CR at VII-35; PR at VII-22 (based on production of 1.003 billion pounds in 2004 and 648 million pounds in

interim 2006). 

 193 CR at VII-35; PR at VII-22; CR/PR at Table VII-22. Production data is estimated from reported information

for the first nine months of 2006. Export data were available only at the 6-digit level for our examination and

therefore include non-subject product.

 194 CR at VII-35; PR at VII-22.

 195 CR at VII-35; PR at VII-22.

 196 CR at VII-36; PR at VII-22.

 197 CR/PR at Table VII-13. Korean producers reported capacity utilization of *** percent for full year 2004. Id.

The share of Korean production exported to the United States increased from *** percent in January-September

2004 to *** percent in January-September 2005. Id.

30

imports and of non-subject imports in the aggregate,190 and non-subject import volume from Taiwan

declined by almost one-half over the period of investigation.191 Moreover, the antidumping duty order on

PSF from Taiwan would likely have limited the incentive of Taiwan producers to gain market share in the

U.S. market.

As for Thailand, the Thai certain PSF industry, like the Taiwan certain PSF industry, reportedly

possessed excess capacity with which it could have increased exports to the United States. Thai

production capacity declined from 1.086 billion pounds in 2004 to 1.035 billion pounds in 2005, and to

839 million pounds in the January-September 2006 interim period, as the Thai industry’s capacity

utilization rate declined from 92.4 percent in 2004 to 77.2 percent in the January-September 2006 interim

period.192 Record data in this investigation suggest that Thai producers are export oriented, with

worldwide exports of all PSF products totaling 391 million pounds in 2006 compared to an estimated 864

million pounds of certain PSF production that year,193 although information with regard to Thai

producers’ historical shipment trends or long-term contractual obligations was not made available during

the time frame of this investigation. 

On the other hand, one of the two largest Thai producers, ***, reportedly ceased production in

September 2006,194 and four additional Thai producers reportedly did not export certain PSF to the United

States over the period of investigation.195 ***, the *** Thai PSF producer and the *** Thai exporter of

certain PSF to the United States, reported that its capacity utilization rate averaged *** percent in 2006,

leaving unused capacity of *** million pounds, but anticipated that an antidumping duty order on imports

from China in the U.S. market would result in higher export prices but not higher export volumes.196 This

response indicates that *** would likely have responded to the elimination of subject imports from the

U.S. market with higher prices rather than higher export volumes.

The certain PSF industry in Korea, unlike the certain PSF industries in Taiwan and Thailand,

would likely have been constrained in its ability to increase exports to the U.S. market by a relatively high

capacity utilization rate toward the end of the period of investigation and the antidumping order on certain

PSF from Korea imposed in 2000. In the five-year review of the antidumping duty order on PSF from

Korea, Korean producers reported that their capacity utilization rate declined from *** percent in the

January-September 2004 period to *** percent in the January-September 2005 period, leaving unused

capacity of *** million pounds.197 However, the Korea Chemical Fibers Association reported that the

Korean industry producing all PSF products operated at approximately 90 percent of capacity in 2006,
 198 CR at VII-25; PR at VII-16.

 199 See CR/PR at Tables IV-5 and C-1. Korean non-subject import volume declined 19.1 percent over the period

of investigation, from 209.9 million pounds in 2004 to 169.9 million pounds in 2006, while Korean market share

declined from 18.6 percent to 15.9 percent. Id. at Table IV-6.

 200 Korean producers’ capacity restraints notwithstanding, record data in this investigation indicate that Korean

producers may be export oriented, with worldwide exports of 1.2 billion pounds in 2006. CR/PR at Table VII-14

(reflecting export data only at the 6-digit level and therefore including non-subject product). Comparisons to Korean

production are not possible, as the only data on the record is that provided during the recent five-year review of the

order on certain PSF from Korea. That data reflect information on two Korean producers. CR/PR at Table VII-13. 

In addition, information with regard to Korean producers’ historical shipment trends or long-term contractual

obligations was not made available during the time frame of this investigation.

 201 CR/PR at Table VII-8.

 202 CR/PR at Table VII-8.

 203 The PSF industry in Indonesia reportedly possesses a production capacity of 1.102 billion pounds, yet

exported only 19.0 million pounds of PSF to the United States in 2005. CR at VII-23; PR at VII-14. According to

the Indonesian Ministry of Trade, two of the five Indonesian producers that represented 85 percent of Indonesian

PSF exported to the U.S. market in 2005 no longer produce PSF. CR at VII-23; PR at VII-14. Nevertheless, nonsubject import volume from Indonesia increased from 12.7 million pounds in 2004, or 1.1 percent of U.S. apparent

consumption, to 43.4 million pounds in 2006, or 4.1 percent of U.S. apparent consumption. CR/PR at Table IV-6. 

The Global Trade Atlas reported that Indian exports of PSF increased from 48.9 million pounds in 2004 to

138.4 million pounds in 2005, and from 109.7 million pounds in January-September 2005 to 129.2 million pounds in

January-September 2006, suggesting that India possesses a sizeable PSF industry. Id. at Table VII-9. The volume

of non-subject imports from India increased from 16.1 million pounds in 2004 to 21.1 million pounds in 2005, but

declined to 20.9 million pounds in 2006, while Indian non-subject imports steadily increased their share of U.S.

apparent consumption from 1.4 percent in 2004 to 1.8 percent in 2005, and to 2.0 percent in 2006. Id. at Table IV-6.

 204 The Mexican company responsible for *** percent of all non-subject imports from Mexico in 2005, Polykron,

ceased operations in July 2005, as confirmed by DAK, its corporate parent. CR at VII-29; PR at VII-18; Hearing Tr.

at 157 (McNaull). Non-subject imports from Mexico declined from 9.7 million pounds in 2005 to 242,000 pounds in

2006, and the Global Trade Atlas reports that Mexican PSF exports declined from 51.6 million pounds in 2005 to 3.4

million pounds in 2006, suggesting that Polykron was the only significant Mexican exporter of PSF. CR/PR at

Tables VII-16, C-1.

31

and projected that this utilization rate would be maintained in 2007 and 2008.198 In addition, the record

indicates that Korean non-subject import volume and market share declined throughout the period of

investigation despite the fact that the AUV of Korean non-subject imports was lower than the AUV of

subject imports in 2004 and 2006 and comparable to the AUV of subject imports in 2005.199 This trend

indicates that the Korean producers were constrained in their ability to increase exports to the United

States, most likely by both capacity limitations and the antidumping duty order.200

Non-subject Chinese producer Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Cixi Jiangnan”) also possessed

limited excess capacity over the period of investigation, given that its capacity utilization rate increased

from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2005, before declining slightly to *** percent in 2006.201 Cixi

Jiangnan anticipates a capacity utilization rate of *** percent in both 2007 and 2008, with unused

capacity of *** million pounds in each year.202

Our information on certain PSF producers in other non-subject countries is more limited. Nonsubject import volume from India and Indonesia increased over the period of investigation, and both

countries appear to have sizeable certain PSF industries, but their respective shares of the U.S. market

remain small and the excess capacity available in both countries is unknown.203 The only significant PSF

producer and exporter in Mexico closed in July 2005.204 Non-subject import volume from Germany was
 205 The volume of non-subject imports from Germany was 4.1 million pounds in 2005, or 0.4 percent of U.S.

apparent consumption that year, and 95 percent of this volume was from a single company. CR at VII-21; PR at

VII-12; CR/PR at Table IV-6. 

 206 CR/PR at Table C-1 and Appendix E. As mentioned earlier, it is particularly noteworthy that Korean nonsubject import volume and market share declined over the period of investigation notwithstanding the fact that

Korean AUVs were among the lowest of any source. See id.

 207 The Commission does not believe that simply because a foreign producer could divert certain PSF production

shipments to the United States to “replace” subject imports from China means that they necessarily would. There is,

in fact, no evidence on the record to suggest that such diversion would be likely here. However, there is inadequate

information in the record of this investigation for the Commission to conclude that such diversion would not take

place because of the significant lack of cooperation by non-subject producers.

 208 In order to have fully replaced subject import volume over the period of investigation, for example, nonsubject import volume would had to have been *** percent greater in 2004, *** percent greater in 2005, and ***

percent greater in 2006. See CR/PR at Table C-1.

 209 Bratsk, 444 F.3d at 1375.

32

insignificant.205 Another factor suggesting that producers in non-subject countries were limited in their

ability to increase exports to the United States is the fact that non-subject import volume declined by ***

percent from 2004 to 2006, and non-subject import market share declined by ***, though non-subject

imports generally carried lower prices than the domestic like product over the period, based on AUV and

pricing product data.206

Taken together, the record with respect to production, unused production capacity, and the export

orientation of the producers in the aggregate in the non-subject countries provides ample evidence that

such producers could have, if so inclined, exported sufficient volumes to the United States during the

period of investigation to replace subject imports to some extent, although not necessarily completely.207

Absent any evidence that these producers would not have acted in such a manner, we are unable to find

that imports from such producers would not have replaced subject imports from China in the U.S. market

to some extent, either by using unutilized capacity or by diverting exports from other markets.208

2. Whether the Domestic Industry Would Have Benefitted Notwithstanding

Any Replacement of Subject Imports With Non-Subject Imports

With respect to the benefit to the domestic industry, the Court in Bratsk appears to focus

primarily on price factors. The Bratsk opinion indicates that the price of the non-subject imports would

be an important consideration: “it may well be that ... the price of the non-subject imports is sufficiently

above the subject imports such that elimination of the subject imports would have benefitted the domestic

industry.”209 We find that non-subject import prices were sufficiently higher than subject import prices

that the domestic industry would have benefitted from the elimination of subject imports from the U.S.

market over the period of investigation, even if non-subject imports had replaced some or even all of the

subject imports. 

In terms of AUVs, non-subject import AUVs, at $*** in 2004, $*** in 2005, and $*** in 2006,

were higher than subject import AUVs, at $*** in 2004, $*** in 2005, and $*** in 2006, in each year of
 210 CR/PR at Table C-1. We again acknowledge that AUV comparisons across countries can be influenced by

differences in product mix but note that the product-specific data on non-subject import prices that we collected are

consistent in demonstrating that non-subject prices were higher. See infra.

 211 See CR/PR at Table C-1.

 212 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 213 See CR/PR at Appendix E. 

 214 See CR/PR at Appendix E. With respect to product 5, non-subject imports oversold the domestic like product

in *** of *** quarterly comparisons, or *** percent of the time. See id.

 215 See CR/PR at Tables V-1-5.

 216 See CR/PR at Appendix E and Tables V-1-5; staff table 2. Non-subject prices were equal to subject import

prices in 3.4 percent of quarterly comparisons and were lower than subject import prices in 42.8 percent of

comparisons. See id.

 217 See Hearing Tr. at 31-32 (Chandrl).

 218 Hearing Tr. at 249-50 (Epstein).

 219 CR at VII-36; PR at VII-22.

33

the period of investigation.210 The AUV of non-subject imports exceeded the AUV of subject imports by

*** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, and *** percent in 2006.211 

Non-subject import AUVs were lower than subject import AUVs only with respect to non-subject

Chinese imports, non-subject Korean imports in 2004 and 2006, non-subject Indian imports in 2004, and

non-subject Mexican imports in 2006.212 Yet, as addressed above, the non-subject Chinese producer and

the Korean industry appear to have limited excess capacity, non-subject imports from Korea have been

subject to an antidumping duty order since 1999, and the only significant Mexican producer ceased

operations in 2005. 

Product-specific pricing data on non-subject imports from China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea,

Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam indicate that non-subject underselling of the domestic like

product was mixed in 2004 and less prevalent than subject import underselling in 2005 and 2006.213 Nonsubject imports undersold the domestic like product in 33 of 83 quarterly comparisons, or 39.8 percent of

the time, in 2004; in 50 of 84 quarterly comparisons, or 59.5 percent of the time, in 2005; and in 58 of 84

comparisons, or 69.0 percent of the time, in 2006.214 By comparison, subject imports undersold the

domestic like product in 4 of 16 comparisons, or 25.0 percent of the time, in 2004; in 14 of 18 quarterly

comparisons, or 77.8 of the time, in 2005; and in 19 of 20 comparisons, or 95 percent of the time, in

2006.215 Non-subject import prices exceeded subject import prices in a majority (53.8 percent) of

quarterly comparisons.216 

Anecdotal evidence on the record also indicates that domestic producer prices would likely have

increased in the absence of subject imports, notwithstanding some replacement of subject imports with

non-subject imports. Nan Ya testified at the Commission’s hearing that it was forced to shut down its

conjugate PSF production line in June 2006 due to low-priced subject import competition, but was able to

restart the line at 50 percent capacity in September 2006, as subject import volume responded to the filing

of the antidumping duty petition, and to operate the line at full capacity by January 2007, after the

imposition of provisional antidumping duty measures.217 Hollander testified at the hearing that prices for

certain PSF from all sources would increase in the U.S. market were an antidumping duty order imposed

on subject imports.218 ***, the *** Thai producer of certain PSF and the *** Thai exporter of PSF to the

United States, reported that an antidumping duty order on subject imports would result in higher prices

offered to buyers in the U.S. market.219

The record thus indicates that, to the extent that subject imports would have been replaced by

non-subject imports, non-subject imports would have generally carried higher prices. Accordingly, we
 220 Final Determination, 72 Fed. Reg. at 19692.

 221 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(4)(A)(i).

 222 SAA at 877.

 223 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(4)(A)(ii).

 224 The legislative history for the critical circumstances provision indicates that the provision was designed “to

deter exporters whose merchandise is subject to an investigation from circumventing the intent of the law by

increasing their exports to the United States during the period between initiation of an investigation and a

preliminary determination by [Commerce].” ICC Industries, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2s 694, 700 (Fed. Cir.

1987), quoting H.R. Rep. No. 317, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 63 (1979).

 225 See Certain Lined School Paper Supplies from China, India, and Indonesia, USITC Pub. 3884 at 47;

Carbozole Violet Pigment from China and India, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-437 and 731-TA-1060 and 1061 (Final), USITC

Pub. 3744 (December 2004) at 26; Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam, Inv. No. 731-TA-1012 (Final), USITC

Pub. 3617 (August 2003) at 20-22.

 226 See Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 56; Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at 15; Petitioners’ Responses to

Commissioner Questions at 16-20.

34

conclude that the domestic industry would likely have benefitted from the elimination of subject imports

from the U.S. market over the period of investigation, both from higher prices and higher market share,

even if non-subject imports would have partially or completely replaced subject imports. Our affirmative

material injury determination, therefore, is consistent with the Court holding in Bratsk.

VI. CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES

In its final antidumping duty determinations concerning PSF from China, Commerce found that

critical circumstances exist with respect to Far Eastern.220 Because we have determined that the domestic

industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports from China, we must further determine

“whether the imports subject to the affirmative [Commerce critical circumstances] determination . . . are

likely to undermine seriously the remedial effect of the antidumping order to be issued.”221 The Statement

of Administrative Action (“SAA”) indicates that the Commission is to determine “whether, by massively

increasing imports prior to the effective date of relief, the importers have seriously undermined the

remedial effect of the order.”222

The statute further provides that in making this determination the Commission shall consider,

among other factors it considers relevant – 

(I) the timing and the volume of the imports,

(II) a rapid increase in inventories of the imports, and

(III) any other circumstances indicating that the remedial effect of the antidumping order

will be seriously undermined.223

In considering the timing and volume of subject imports, the Commission’s practice is to consider

import quantities prior to the filing of the petition with those subsequent to the filing of the petition224

using monthly statistics on the record regarding those firms for which Commerce has made an affirmative

critical circumstance determination.225 

Petitioners argue that Commission should emulate Commerce and predicate its critical

circumstances determination on import trends over the six-month periods before and after March 2006

because Commerce determined that Far Eastern knew or should have known that an antidumping duty

petition on certain PSF from China was imminent as early as March 6, 2006.226 Petitioners claim that in

past cases, the Commission has examined periods other than the six-month periods before and after a
 227 See Petitioners’ Responses to Commissioner Questions at 17-21. Petitioners can cite no case in which the

Commission’s latter comparison period was either party or entirely before the date of a petition’s filing. 

 228 See Petitioners’ Responses to Commissioner Questions at 17-21.

 229 We note that even if we found that critical circumstances existed in this case, retroactive duties would not be

placed on the “massive increase in imports of subject PSF from Far Eastern” alleged by Petitioners. Petitioners’

Prehearing Brief at 56. Petitioners argument is that imports were *** during April-June 2006 than during JanuaryMarch 2006. Id.

The petition in this investigation was filed on June 23, 2006, and Commerce’s preliminary determination

was on December 26, 2006. The statute permits retroactive imposition of duties for only 90 days prior to

Commerce’s preliminary determination, which itself is normally 140 days after the filing of a petition. See 19

U.S.C. §§ 1673b(b)(1), 1673d(c)(4). Thus, even if the Commission made an affirmative determination on critical

circumstances in this case, duties would only be retroactively applied on unliquidated entries made from late

September to late December 2006, a period of time considerably removed from June 2006.

 230 Compare Certain Brake Drums and Rotors from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-744 (Final), USITC Pub. 3035

(April 1997) at 19 n.109 with Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-745 (Final), USITC

Pub. 3034 (April 1997) at 34.

 231 See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Final), USITC Pub. 3034 (April

1997) at 34.

 232 CR/PR at Table IV-4; see also CR/PR at Figure IV-3.

 233 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

35

petition’s filing in considering the existence of critical circumstances, generally to factor seasonality into

its analysis.227 They also note that the statute and the SAA are silent on the periods to be examined in the

context of critical circumstances.228

We are not persuaded by petitioners’ arguments that we should diverge from our normal practice

in this final phase investigation. Petitioners cite cases in which the Commission has adjusted its

comparison periods to account for seasonality but cite no case in which the Commission predicated a

critical circumstances determination on import trends either partially or entirely predating a petition’s

filing.229 Indeed, our practice is to rely on data gathered from the periods immediately preceding and

following the filing of the petition unless there is evidence the market for the product at issue is

seasonal.230 

Petitioners emphasize Commerce’s logic for predicating its affirmative critical circumstances

determination on an analysis of periods before and after March 2006: the finding that Far Eastern “knew

or should have known” of the impending antidumping petition as of March 6, 2006. Yet, the critical

circumstances provision contemplates that the Commission will make an independent consideration of the

“timing and volume” of imports subject to the affirmative Commerce critical circumstances

determination, while not disregarding Commerce’s determination of “massive imports.” We are not

required to examine the same periods that Commerce examined in performing its critical circumstances

analysis.231 

Based on a comparison of subject import volume and monthly inventories from Far Eastern over

the six-month periods before and after the petition’s filing in June 2006, we find no massive increase in

either imports or inventories prior to the effective date of relief that could seriously undermine the

remedial effect of the order. Based on proprietary Customs data, subject imports from Far Eastern

declined *** percent between the January-June 2006 and July-December 2006 periods, from *** million

pounds to *** million pounds.232 Far Eastern’s exports of subject merchandise to the United States, as

reported to Commerce, declined a similar *** percent between the January-June 2006 and July-December

2006 periods, from *** million pounds to *** million pounds.233 Importers of subject merchandise from

Far Eastern reported in their questionnaire responses that their subject imports from Far Eastern increased
 234 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 235 CR/PR at Table IV-4; see also CR/PR at Figure IV-4.

36

only *** percent between the January-June 2006 and July-December 2006 periods, from *** million

pounds to *** million pounds.234 Regardless of the data set used, the record reflects no massive increase

in subject import volume from Far Eastern subsequent to the petition’s filing.

Inventory data confirms the lack of any massive increase in subject imports from Far Eastern that

could seriously undermine the remedial effect of the order. Average monthly end-of-period inventories of

subject merchandise imported from Far Eastern declined from *** million pounds over the January-June

2006 period to *** million pounds over the July-December 2006 period, or *** percent.235 

We determine that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to the subject imports from Far

Eastern covered by Commerce’s affirmative critical circumstances determination, and therefore make a

negative critical circumstances determination.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the domestic industry producing certain PSF is

materially injured by reason of subject imports from China sold at less than fair value.
 1

 A complete description of the imported products subject to investigation is presented in The Subject Product

section of this part of the report.

 2 Federal Register notices cited in the tabulation are presented in app. A.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

This investigation results from a petition filed by DAK Americas, LLC, Charlotte, NC (“DAK”);

Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America, Lake City, SC (“Nan Ya”); and Wellman, Inc., Shrewsbury, NJ

(“Wellman”), on June 23, 2006, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and

threatened with material injury by reason of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of certain polyester

staple fiber (“PSF”)1

 from China. Information relating to the background of the investigation is provided

below.2

Date Action

June 23, 2006 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission

investigation (71 FR 37097, June 29, 2006)

July 13, 2006 Commerce’s initiation (71 FR 41201, July 20, 2006)

August 7, 2006 Commission’s preliminary determination (71 FR 46241, August 11, 2006)

December 5, 2006 Commerce’s postponement of preliminary determination (71 FR 70508)

December 26, 2006 Commerce’s preliminary determination (71 FR 77373)

December 26, 2006 Commission’s scheduling of final phase investigation (72 FR 1341, January 11,

2007)

February 9, 2007 Commerce’s postponement of final determination (72 FR 6201)

February 9, 2007 Commission’s revised scheduling of final phase investigation (72 FR 7676, February

16, 2007)

March 13, 2007 Commission’s hearing1

April 10, 2007 Commerce’s final determination (72 FR 19690)

May 15, 2007 Scheduled date for the Commission’s vote

May 24, 2007 Commission’s views due to Commerce

1

 A list of witnesses appearing at the hearing is presented in app B.

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides that in

making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission--

shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II)

the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States

for domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such
I-2

merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only

in the context of production operations within the United States; and. . . 

may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of

imports.

Section 771(7)(C) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)) further provides that--

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission

shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any

increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production

or consumption in the United States is significant.

. . .

In evaluating the effect of imports of such merchandise on prices, the

Commission shall consider whether. . .(I) there has been significant price

underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the price of

domestic like products of the United States, and (II) the effect of imports

of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant 

degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.

. . .

In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph

(B)(i)(III), the Commission shall evaluate (within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

affected industry) all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on

the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to

. . . (I) actual and potential decline in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, (II)

factors affecting domestic prices, (III) actual and potential negative

effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to

raise capital, and investment, (IV) actual and potential negative effects

on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic

industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced

version of the domestic like product, and (V) in {an antidumping

investigation}, the magnitude of the margin of dumping.

Information on the subject merchandise, margins of dumping, and domestic like product is

presented in Part I. Information on conditions of competition and other relevant economic factors is

presented in Part II. Part III presents information on the condition of the U.S. industry, including data on

capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. The volume and pricing of imports of the

subject merchandise are presented in Parts IV and V, respectively. Part VI presents information on the

financial experience of U.S. producers. The statutory requirements and information obtained for use in

the Commission’s consideration of the question of threat of material injury are presented in Part VII. 

U.S. MARKET SUMMARY

The domestic industry producing certain polyester staple fiber consists of eight companies. The

largest producer of subject PSF is ***, with *** percent of 2006 domestic production. *** producer of

certain PSF, *** the imposition of antidumping duties on imports of certain PSF from China, and
 3

 Purchaser questionnaires also were sent with importer questionnaires.

 4

 *** submitted a purchaser questionnaire but does not purchase any certain PSF. It is an importer of certain

PSF, and thus its purchaser questionnaire response was disregarded. Staff telephone interview with ***, February 6,

2007.

 5

 The petition was filed by 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. However, 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. Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-825-826

(Review), USITC Publication 3843, March 2006, p. I-6. 

 6 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. 

 7 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.

I-3

accounts for *** percent of domestic production. *** producers, ***, reported imports of certain PSF

from nonsubject sources during the period of investigation.

Twenty-one firms reported having imported certain PSF. Eighteen of these firms imported

certain PSF from China, with four firms importing exclusively from China. Eleven firms reported

imports from Korea and/or Taiwan. Twelve companies reported imports from India, Indonesia, Japan,

Mexico, and/or Thailand. The largest importer of subject PSF from China in 2006 was ***, accounting

for *** percent of imports of certain PSF from China and *** percent of imports from all sources.

In response to purchaser questionnaires issued by the Commission to 87 firms,3

 38 purchasers

supplied usable data,4

 and nine firms reported that they had not purchased the subject product during the

period for which data were collected. U.S. purchasers, and their U.S. locations, sources, and types of

firms, are shown in appendix D.

SUMMARY DATA

A summary of data collected in the investigation is presented in appendix C. Except as noted,

U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of eight firms that accounted for all known U.S.

production of certain PSF during 2006. U.S. imports are based on official Commerce statistics and

proprietary Customs data. 

PREVIOUS AND RELATED 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 dumped imports of certain PSF from

Korea and Taiwan.5

 Following Commerce’s final affirmative dumping determinations, the Commission

made affirmative injury determinations with respect to imports from Korea and Taiwan. Commerce

issued antidumping duty orders with weighted-average margins of 7.91 to 14.10 percent ad valorem for

imports from Korea, and 5.77 to 9.51 percent ad valorem for imports from Taiwan.6

On March 31, 2005, the Commission instituted its five-year reviews of the antidumping duty

orders on imports of certain PSF from Korea and Taiwan. On August 5, 2005, Commerce determined

that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of

dumping at a weighted-average margin of 7.91 percent ad valorem for Korea, and a range of 3.79 to

11.50 percent ad valorem for Taiwan.7

 On March 23, 2006, the Commission published its determinations

in its full five-year reviews that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on imports of certain PSF from
 8 Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Determinations, 71 FR 14721.

 9 Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Continuation of Antidumping Duty

Orders, 71 FR 16558.

 10 An exception was Cixi Jiangnan, a manufacturer/exporter in China which was found to have a de minimis

antidumping margin. See footnote 1 in the tabulation.

 11 Commerce determines that critical circumstances exist if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that:

(A)(i) there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or

elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or (ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was

imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value

and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales; and (B) there have been massive imports of

the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Commerce issues and decision memorandum, April 10, 2007,

p. 43.

I-4

Korea and Taiwan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic

industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.8

 Commerce published notice of continuation of the

antidumping duty orders on imports of certain PSF from Korea and Taiwan on April 3, 2006.9

NATURE AND EXTENT OF SALES AT LTFV

Commerce determined that certain PSF from China is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United

States at less than fair value,10 and that critical circumstances exist with respect to the subject merchandise

exported from China by Far Eastern Industries (Shanghai) Ltd.11 Commerce’s margins are presented

below.
I-5

Exporter/Producer

Weighted-average margin 

Preliminary Final

(percent ad valorem)

Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Co., Ltd. 15.30 de minimis1

Far Eastern Industries (Shanghai) Ltd. 10.45 3.47

Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. 4.39 4.86

Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. 9.25 4.44

Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. 9.25 4.44

Cixi Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. 9.25 4.44

Hangzhou Best Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd. 9.25 4.44

Hangzhou Hanbang Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd., 9.25 4.44

Hangzhou Huachuang Co., Ltd. 9.25 4.44

Hangzhou Sanxin Paper Co., Ltd. 9.25 4.44

Hangzhou Taifu Textile Fiber Co., Ltd. 9.25 4.44

Jiaxang Fuda Chemical Fibre Factory 9.25 4.44

Nantong Luolai Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd. 9.25 4.44

Nanyang Textile Co., Ltd. 9.25 4.44

Suzhou PolyFiber Co., Ltd. 9.25 4.44

Xiamen Xianglu Fiber Chemical Co. 9.25 4.44

Zhaoqing Tifo New Fiber Co., Ltd. 9.25 4.44

Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co., Ltd. 9.25 4.44

Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.. 9.25 4.44

PRC–Wide Rate 44.30 44.30

1

 With respect to Cixi Jiangnan, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(“Customs”) not to suspend liquidation of any entries of such PSF from China, and will not require any cash

deposit or posting of a bond by importers when the subject merchandise is produced and exported by Cixi

Jiangnan. 72 FR 19693, April 16, 2007.

Source: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical

Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 19693, April 16,

2007.
 12 Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical

Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 19690, April 19, 2007.

 13 The scope of the products subject to the current investigation concerning China is consistent with the scope of

the outstanding antidumping duty orders concerning Korea and Taiwan. 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.

 14 Decitex is the Canadian and European equivalent to denier and equals the total weight in grams of 10,000

meters. Antron Carpet Fiber website, found at http://www.antron.net/content/resources/styling_glossary/

ant06_08_04.shtml, retrieved July 12, 2006.

 15 Denier is a weight-per-unit-length measure of filament fibers or yarns. Denier is numerically equal to the

weight in grams of 9,000 meters of fiber. Denier is a direct numbering system in which the lower numbers represent

the finer sizes and the higher numbers the coarser sizes. In the U.S., the denier system is used for numbering

filament yarns and man-made fiber staple tow, but not spun yarns. Antron Carpet Fiber website, found at

http://www.antron.net/content/resources/styling_glossary/ant06_08_04.shtml, retrieved July 12, 2006. Denier is not

a unit of measure commonly used in the Harmonized System tariff nomenclature. 

 16 The North American Industry Classification System code for the manufacture of PSF is 32522. The cited

provision of the HTS is a non-legal statistical reporting number for PSF measuring less than 3.3 decitex.

I-6

THE SUBJECT PRODUCT

Commerce has defined the imported merchandise within the scope of this investigation as

follows:12 13

Synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of

polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex14 (3 denier15, inclusive) or more in diameter. This

merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) to five inches (127 mm). 

The subject merchandise 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. 

The following products are excluded from the scope: (1) PSF of less than 3.3 decitex

(less than 3 denier) currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (“HTS”) at subheading 5503.20.002516 and known to the industry as PSF

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

apparel products; (2) PSF 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 (3) low-melt PSF defined as

a bi-component fiber with an outer, non-polyester sheath that melts at a significantly

lower temperature than its inner polyester core (classified at HTSUS 5503.20.0015).

Tariff Treatment 

Certain PSF is imported under 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 rate of 4.3

percent ad valorem. Table I-1 presents tariff rates for certain PSF in 2006. The tabulation following

table I-1 presents dumping margins in effect during the period of investigation for imports of certain PSF

from Korea and Taiwan that are subject to antidumping duty orders.
I-7

Table I-1

Certain PSF: Tariff rates, 2007

HTS Provision

Article Description

Column 1

Column 23

General1 Special2

Rates (percent ad valorem)

5503 Synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed, or

otherwise processed for spinning:

4.34 Free5

 25.0

5503.20.00 Of polyesters

5503.20.0045

Other:

Measuring 3.3 decitex or more but 

less than 13.2 decitex

5503.20.0065 Measuring 13.2 decitex or more

1

 Normal trade relations, formerly known as the most-favored-nation duty rate, applicable to imports from China. 2

 General note 3(c)(i) lists the special tariff treatment programs indicated in this column. Goods must meet eligibility rules set

forth in other general notes, and importers must properly claim such treatment. 3

 Applies to imports from a small number of countries that do not enjoy normal trade relations duty status. 4

 Goods covered under 9902.55.03 are free. These include “Bi-component staple fibers of elasterell-p, measuring less

than 3.5 decitex (provided for in subheading 5503.20.00).” 5

 Applies to eligible imports under free trade agreements from Australia (AU), Bahrain (BH), Canada (CA), Chile (CL), Israel

(IL), Jordan (JO), Morocco (MA), Mexico (MX), Dominican Republic - Central America (P), and Singapore (SG). 

Source: 2007 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

Manufacturer/exporter

Weighted-average margin

(percent ad valorem)

Korea:

Daeyang Industrial Co., Ltd. 1.39

East Young Co., Ltd. 4.07

Huvis Corp. 5.87

Mijung Ind. Co., Ltd. 1.00

Saehan Industries, Inc. 2.13

Sam Young Synthetics Co. 0.75

Sunglim Co., Ltd. 0.61

All others 7.91

Taiwan:

Far Eastern Textiles Ltd. 9.51

Nan Ya Plastics Corp., Ltd. 5.77

All others 7.53

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

Publication 3843, March 2006, p. I-6-I-8.
 17 The following discussion generally is from the Commission’s five-year reviews of the antidumping duty orders

on certain PSF from Korea and Taiwan. Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA825 and 826 (Review), USITC Publication 3843, March 2006, pp. I-11-I-12.

 18 Conference transcript, p. 17 (Bermish). PSF is also used on a more limited basis in the production of ***. 

Staff telephone interview with ***, July 5, 2006; see also Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan,

Inv. Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Review), USITC Publication 3843, March 2006, p. I-11.

 19 Petition, p. 8. See also 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. 

 20 Conference transcript, pp. 46-47 (Bermish).

 21 “Performance” refers to the ability of the fiber to fulfill purchaser’s end uses, in loft, fill capacity, and

durability.

 22 Conference transcript, p. 23 (Barfield).

 23 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. Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Inv.

Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Review), USITC Publication 3843, March 2006, p. I-12. 

 24 Conference transcript, p. 17 (Bermish).

I-8

THE PRODUCT

Physical Characteristics and Uses17

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

PSF is principally known in the industry as “fiber for fill,” as it is primarily used as polyester fiberfill.18

Certain PSF is generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, cushions,

pillows, and furniture.19 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 visible.20 Therefore, the

appearance of certain PSF can be less important than its performance21 to customers. However, the

appearance of certain PSF directly affects the look and perceived value of many end-products, such as

mattresses, comforters, cushions, pillows, and furniture with less opaque 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 conjugated, giving the fiber “loft” for

stuffing purposes. Conjugate PSF has a three-dimensional spiral twist in the fiber made from two types of

fiber by either a chemical or mechanical process, designed to provide greater loft or fill capacity to the

fiber. Non-conjugate fiber has a two-dimensional sawtooth crimp and provides somewhat less fill

capacity.22 Certain PSF may also be coated with a finish (usually silicone or oil-based), making the fiber

smoother to the touch for certain high-end uses.23 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. PSF can be made by reacting

ethylene glycol with either terephthalic acid or its methyl ester; if so produced, it is termed virgin PSF. 

Virgin PSF is characterized by the purity of the whiteness of the fiber. PSF 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.24 Fiber made in this way is known as regenerated,

or recycled, fiber, and does not contain virgin fiber. In the reviews of the antidumping duty orders on

PSF from Korea and Taiwan, industry witnesses disagreed on whether regenerated and recycled PSF are

different terms for the same product or are products distinguishable according to the quality of the
 25 Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Review), USITC

Publication 3843, March 2006, p. I-15.

 26 Petition, p. 10.

 27 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, p. 33-34; petitioners’ posthearing brief, p. 13 and exh. 1, p. 13.; petitioners’ final

comments, p. 11, fn.12; and hearing transcript, p. 54 (Cannon).

 28 Conference transcript, p. 48 (Rosenthal).

 29 The following discussion generally is from the Commission’s five-year reviews of the antidumping duty orders

on certain PSF from Korea and Taiwan. Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA825 and 826 (Review), USITC Publication 3843, March 2006, pp. I-12-I-14.

 30 Petition, p. 11; see also, conference transcript, p. 17 (Bermish).

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

Publication 3300, May 2000, pp. I-14-15.

 32 Ibid., p. I-5.

I-9

recycled inputs.25 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 produced 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 this investigation.26

Petitioners argue that the type of input, whether virgin or regenerated, does not affect

interchangeability, though all types of PSF (e.g. slick or dry, solid or hollow) are not completely

interchangeable with one another.27 Petitioners further emphasized at the preliminary conference that

“customers care about the end product, not the raw material that goes into making that end product.”28

Manufacturing Process29

The manufacturing process for certain PSF may be divided into two discrete stages. The first

stage of the process is polymer formation, which can vary depending on whether virgin (unprocessed

chemicals) or recycled materials are being used. Polymer formation also varies depending on whether

conjugate fiber or low-melt fiber is being produced. The second stage of the process, which is common to

all certain PSF, 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/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.30

 In the first stage of production, unlike non-conjugate PSF, which requires a single spinning

process, conjugate PSF is produced using a double spinning process either by direct spinning or batch

spinning.31 This process combines two polymers of differing viscosity into a Y-shaped spinneret.32

Conjugate and non-conjugate are normally made on separate manufacturing lines, and one line would not
 33 Hearing transcript, p. 63 (Rosenthal).

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

Publication 3300, May 2000, p. 8.

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

Publication 3843, March 2006, p. I-15.

 36 “Regenerated certain PSF” refers to both regenerated and recycled PSF unless otherwise noted.

 37 Petition, p. 12; see also Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826

(Review), USITC Publication 3843, March 2006, p. I-13. 

 38 Petition, p. 11.

 39 Conference transcript, p. 23 (Barfield).

 40 Petition, p. 12.

 41 Petition, pp. 9-10; see also, 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. 

 42 See part III of this report.

 43 Petition, p. 11; see also, Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826

(Review), USITC Publication 3843, March 2006, p. I-14. 

I-10

ordinarily be switched from one PSF type to the other.33 However, the same employees are used to

produce conjugate PSF and other types of certain PSF.34 After the conjugate PSF is extruded, the

stretching, cutting, and baling of the conjugate PSF is identical to other types of certain PSF.35

The manufacture of regenerated36 certain PSF begins with the processing of the recycled

materials. As reported in the petition, 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.37 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.38

The second stage of production is common to fibers made from either virgin or recycled

materials, including conjugate. 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 two-dimensional, saw-tooth shape.39 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, 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.40

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.41 These nonsubject forms of PSF may be manufactured on the same equipment and machinery

used in the production of certain PSF.42 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.43 PSF for carpeting is a higher denier than certain PSF

and is produced by using a spinneret with larger holes. To achieve carpet fibers with luster, a slightly
 44 Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Review), USITC

Publication 3843, March 2006, p. I-14. 

 45 Conference transcript, p. 23 (Barfield); see also, Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Inv.

Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Review), USITC Publication 3843, March 2006, p. I-14. 

 46 Conference transcript, p. 17 (Bermish).

 47 Ibid., p. 24 (Barfield).

 48 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, p. 33-34; petitioners’ posthearing brief, p. 13 and exh. 1, p. 13.; petitioners’ final

comments, p. 11 fn.12; and hearing transcript, p. 54 (Canon).

 49 Conference transcript, p. 71 (Barfield).

I-11

different mix of raw materials is used.44 Low-melt fiber is produced in a very similar process to conjugate

fiber. Like conjugate fiber, low-melt fiber can be produced by both a direct spinning system or a batch

system. Component polymers are forced through a Y-shaped extruder to form a single fiber. A chemical

ingredient is added to make the outer sheath polymer subject to a lower melting point. The fiber is then

stretched, cut, and baled.45

Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions

Petitioners argue that imports of certain PSF are largely interchangeable and compete for the

same sales as U.S.-produced PSF.46 When ordering certain PSF, customers conduct a type of total cost

analysis that compares the cost of the fiber against its fill capacity. Some customers choose to pay more

for better fill capacity or decide to purchase and use more fiber with a lesser fill capacity.47 Petitioners

argue that certain PSF is interchangeable regardless of input (i.e. virgin or regenerated), but that not all

types of certain PSF are completely interchangeable with one another (e.g. slick or dry, solid or hollow).48

Petitioners argue that the quality of certain PSF from China is comparable to the quality of U.S.-

produced PSF. A witness for petitioner Nan Ya argued that “the imported Chinese fiber and their quality

is very acceptable to meet {customer} requirements. In a lot of cases {the Chinese fiber} doesn’t surpass

our quality, but {imports} are able to give the customer the quality they need to achieve their product

performance... .”49

Channels of Distribution

Certain PSF is transported via rail or truck in containers to distributors and end users; however, a

majority of shipments go to end users. In 2006, 18.3 percent of shipments from U.S. producers were to

distributors while 81.7 percent were to end users. Importers reported that the vast majority of all imports

were shipped directly to end users.

Price

Information with regard to prices of certain polyester staple fiber is presented in Part V of this

report, Pricing and Related Information.

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

The Commission’s determination regarding the appropriate domestic product that is “like” the

subject imported product is based on a number of factors, including (1) physical characteristics and uses;

(2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer and

producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and where appropriate, (6) price. For purposes of its

preliminary determination, the Commission found that “certain PSF is a continuum of products, without
 50 Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1104 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3878, August

2006, p. 6. The Commission also noted that “(t)his definition of the domestic like product is consistent with the

domestic like product definition with respect to the outstanding antidumping duty order on certain PSF from Korea

and Taiwan.” Ibid., footnote 19; see also, Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos.

731-TA-825-826 (Review), USITC Pub. 3843, March 2006, pp. 5-6.

 51 Ashley’s prehearing brief, pp. 6-10. Counsel for Ashley did not request that the Commission gather

information on like product factors regarding the issue of conjugate PSF as a separate like product in its comments

on the Commission’s draft questionnaires. Rather, counsel requested that the Commission gather discrete

production, trade, and pricing data for 16 separate products, including four types of conjugate certain PSF. Ashley’s

comments on the Commission’s draft questionnaires, December 21, 2006, pp. 2-6. 

 52 Insituform’s prehearing brief, pp. 4-12. Insituform indicated that it did not provide comments on the

Commission’s draft questionnaires and raise separate product arguments at that time, because it “joined the

investigation after that.” Hearing transcript, p. 269 (Shapiro).

 53 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, pp. 4-6; hearing transcript, pp. 49-52 (Cannon); and petitioners’ posthearing brief,

pp. 2-5.

 54 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, pp. 2-3.

 55 The 3-D, high void PSF is described as a “mechanically crimped product...{that} is a three-dimensional product

with physical characteristics similar to a conjugate and is directly competitive with sales of conjugate PSF in the

United States market.” Hearing transcript, p. 24 (Katz).

 56 Domestic producers Nan Ya and Wellman estimated that the combined domestic market share of conjugate PSF

and high-void PSF is *** percent of the total PSF market. Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exh. 1 p. 23.

I-12

any clear distinctions among types, and therefore we define the domestic like product in this investigation

as all certain PSF, coextensive with the scope of the investigation.”50

Respondents did not take a position on the definition of the domestic like product during the

preliminary phase of this investigation. In their prehearing briefs during this final phase, two respondent

parties argued for separate like products: Ashley Furniture argues that conjugate PSF is a distinct

separate product from other certain PSF,51 and Insituform Technologies argues that certain PSF used in

cured-in-place pipe (“CIPP”) applications is a distinct separate product from other certain PSF.52

In arguing for a single like product, petitioners contend that imports from China are directly

competitive with U.S.-produced certain PSF, have no significant differences in physical characteristics

and uses, are destined for the same end uses, are produced using the same basic manufacturing processes,

and are sold through the same channels of distribution.53

Conjugate PSF

Ashley Furniture maintains that conjugate PSF is produced through a unique double spinning

production process that gives it different physical characteristics from other conventional PSF. Conjugate

PSF has a three-dimensional spiral twist, while nonconjugate is two dimensional, providing less fill

capacity. Ashley Furniture also argues that conjugate is more comparable to fine goose down than to

conventional mechanically crimped PSF, and that producers and purchasers find conjugate PSF and

mechanically crimped PSF interchangeable only some of the time.

Petitioners argue that conjugate PSF is not a separate like product, and is simply a part of a

continuum of PSF products used for loft.54 Petitioners contend that Wellman produces a mechanically

crimped, 3-D, high-void PSF with similar characteristics, final production stages, channels of distribution,

and price as conjugate PSF.55 Furthermore, petitioners assert that purchasers can and do interchange 3-D,

high-void PSF with conjugate PSF.56

Table I-2 presents average unit values and shares of U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ U.S.

shipments of conjugate, non-conjugate, and other certain PSF during the period 2004-06.
 57 In its prehearing brief, Insituform described PSF used for CIPP applications as “non-coated high-quality solid

PSF cut to 3-4 inch lengths that is not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, measuring either 6 denier

(continued...)

I-13

Table I-2

Certain PSF: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ average unit values and shares of U.S.

shipments, by product groups, 2004-06

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Unit value (per pound)

U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced product:

Conjugate $0.61 $0.73 $0.76

Non-conjugate 0.56 0.70 0.72

Other *** *** ***

Average 0.58 0.70 0.70

U.S. shipments of imports from China (subject):

Conjugate 0.55 0.61 0.59

Non-conjugate 0.49 0.53 0.49

Other 0.51 0.56 0.53

Average 0.50 0.56 0.54

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced product:

Conjugate *** *** ***

Non-conjugate 69.6 67.4 69.4

Other *** *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

U.S. shipments of imports from China (subject):

Conjugate 13.7 29.4 41.5

Non-conjugate 78.9 57.8 50.5

Other 7.4 12.8 8.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Calculated from tables III-6 and IV-3.

PSF for CIPP Applications

Respondent Insituform argues that the certain PSF used in its unique application, CIPP, must

meet stringent physical characteristics, such as specific crimp count, elasticity, and tensile elongation.57
 57 (...continued)

or 15 denier (6.6 and 16.5 decitex), possessing 8-9 crimps per inch, hardened by high-temperature steam, a tensile

elongation of between 38% and 45% and a tenacity of 3g - 5g per denier.” Insituform’s prehearing brief, p. 12, and

hearing transcript, p. 167 (Costa). In its posthearing brief, Insituform elaborated on the definition and described the

separate product as “uncoated solid polyester staple fiber, not carded or otherwise processed for spinning, measuring

6 to 15 denier (6.6 to 16.5 decitex) classified under HTSUS subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065 containing

8-9 crimps formed under high temperature and steam per inch, having a tensile elongation of 38-45%, a tenacity of

3-5g per denier, cut to a length of 4-5 inches, and a finish that is compatible with polyolefin resin for use in the

production of non-woven fabrics for cured in place pipe.” Insituform’s posthearing brief, p. 2. 

 58 Hearing transcript, p. 166 (Costa).

 59 These are domestic producer Invista and Chinese producer ***.

 60 Hearing transcript, p. 26 (Katz).

 61 Invista’s supplemental producers’ questionnaire response, March 28, 2007.

 62 Invista estimated that if the definition was expanded to include cut lengths between one and four inches, this

PSF would capture *** percent of Invista’s 2006 sales of certain PSF. Ibid.

 63 Invista’s supplemental producers’ questionnaire response, March 28, 2007.

 64 ***’s foreign producers’ questionnaire response.

I-14

These characteristics are antithetical to fiberfill applications, and make the PSF used in CIPP applications

more analogous to PSF excluded from the scope of the investigation, namely PSF for spinning and used

for woven and knit applications.58 Insituform also argues that these stringent criteria mean that PSF for

CIPP applications is available from only two PSF producers worldwide,59 and commands a price

premium.

Petitioners argue that while Insituform’s use of PSF is unique and unusual, that does not mean

that the PSF that Insituform purchases is itself unique. Furthermore, petitioners argue that certain PSF

with the same specifications “is produced by a number of companies and is used for both nonwoven and

fiberfill applications.”60

Invista, Insituform’s sole provider of PSF for CIPP applications until 2006, reported that it sells

PSF for CIPP applications to non-Insituform customers for applications beyond CIPP, including

traditional fiberfill, as well as non-woven felt-type applications.61 Invista noted that except for the cutlength, the specifications of PSF used in CIPP are exactly the same as *** its products, and can be

processed though the same processing technology and equipment.62 Invista reported that in its

experience, the type of downstream equipment determines how PSF will behave in the downstream

applications. For example, PSF for CIPP applications processed by garneting equipment will increase in

volume, while the same PSF processed through needle punch equipment will become flatter and tighter.63

Table I-3 presents average unit values and shares of Invista’s U.S. shipments of certain PSF to Insituform

and all others during the period 2004-06.

Table I-3

Certain PSF: Invista’s U.S. shipments of product with specifications identified for CIPP

applications, 2004-06

* * * * * * *

Insituform’s other supplier, Chinese producer ***, reported that it also sells PSF for CIPP

applications to non-Insituform customers *** for applications beyond CIPP, including non-woven

applications and fiberfill.64
 1

 ***.

 2

 Many furniture and bedding manufacturers are located in the Southeast.

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET SEGMENTS

Certain PSF is used primarily as fill or stuffing for furniture, cushions, pillows, sleeping bags,

bedding, mattresses, car seats, pet beds, and ski jackets, although it also can be used in applications such

as automotive insulation and filtration.1

 Other end users include manufacturers of non-woven batting,

which is then sold to manufacturers of sleeping bags and comforters.

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

U.S. producers ship certain PSF primarily to end users, with some sales going to distributors

(table II-1). On average during the period, U.S. producers shipped 80.9 percent of their certain PSF to

end users, with 19.1 percent going to distributors. Importers of certain PSF from China and from

nonsubject countries also shipped the vast majority of their PSF to end users during the period.

Table II-1

Certain PSF: Reported channels of distribution for domestic product and imports sold in the U.S.

market (as a percent of total shipments), 2004-06

2004 2005 2006

 Share of quantity (percent)

Domestic producers:

 Shipments to distributors 19.6 19.3 18.3

 Shipments to end users 80.4 80.7 81.7

Imports from China (subject):

 Shipments to distributors 1.6 2.7 5.6

 Shipments to end users 98.4 97.3 94.4

Imports from nonsubject sources:1

 Shipments to distributors *** *** ***

 Shipments to end users *** *** ***

 1 Nonsubject sources include India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, and Cixi Jiangnan.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Geographic Markets

U.S. producers and importers, as a whole, reported serving national markets, although some

individual firms reported that their sales were concentrated in particular regions.2

 Generally, producers

reported serving primarily the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and Southeast, as well as the national
II-2

market, and importers reported serving the Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, and West Coast, as well as the

national market (see table II-2). All six importers that reported nationwide sales import PSF from China.

Table II-2

Certain PSF: Geographic market areas in the United States served by domestic producers and

importers of subject product

Region Producers Importers

National market 4 6

Northeast 3 3

Mid-Atlantic 3 1

Midwest 3 3

Southeast 3 4

Southwest 1 2

Rocky Mountains 1 0

West Coast 0 5

Northwest 1 2

Note.–Seven producers and 12 importers responded to this question. Firms were not limited to the number of market areas that

they could report.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

U.S. Supply

Domestic Production

When asked if there had been any changes in the product range, product mix, or marketing of

certain PSF, only 2 producers and 3 of the 19 responding importers responded affirmatively. ***

reported that there has been a reduction in the use of product branding when marketing certain PSF, and

*** reported that there has been a trend toward smaller orders with more variety of product. *** reported

that some Asian suppliers have developed a “high void” product that gives better fill power per pound,

and *** reported that green fiber (recycled from bottles) has replaced 2-polymer and 1-polymer conjugate

in many furniture applications.

Purchasers were asked if there have been changes in any factors that affected the availability of

certain PSF in the U.S. market since 2004. Twenty-one of the 33 responding purchasers reported that

there had been changes, with 12 purchasers citing effects from the hurricanes in 2005, which included raw

material price increases and temporary shortages of PSF. Three purchasers reported that closures of

domestic PSF facilities, specifically by Wellman and Invista, have affected PSF availability. *** reported

that imports of certain PSF and imports of finished products that use PSF have affected the domestic

supply of PSF.

Purchasers also were asked if they had experienced any short supplies or unavailability of certain

products or if they had been placed on allocation since 2004. Six purchasers reported that there had been

problems with supply during the period, with two specifically citing effects after the hurricanes of 2005. 

Other purchasers reported that Nan Ya, Invista, and KoSa had placed them on allocation or had postponed
 3

 *** also reported that siliconized hollow products are not available from Korean suppliers so it turned to

Chinese suppliers for PSF with the qualities and production capabilities it needed to supply the market.

 4

 Purchasers reported certain PSF price increases that ranged from 3 to 20 percent.

 5

 Wellman reduced capacity in the second quarter of 2005 and Nan Ya shut down a conjugate PSF line in May

2006. Nan Ya then restarted its conjugate line in July 2006. Conference transcript, p. 25 (Barfield).

II-3

shipments. *** reported that there were no major problems with supply during the period, but that it had

purchased PSF imports from China to protect its position.

Three of the seven responding producers and only two importers reported having refused or

declined orders for certain PSF or having been unable to supply certain PSF since 2004. *** reported

that, due to the hurricanes in 2005, it temporarily reduced supply to some customers for one to two

months. *** reported that it declared “force majeure” after the hurricanes and placed temporary

surcharges on orders but that most conditions were back to normal by the end of January 2006. ***

reported that it is currently *** and cannot accept any new customers. *** reported that high demand in

Europe for Korean and Taiwan PSF forced it to turn to Chinese sources but did not report when during

the period this occurred.3

When specifically asked about the effects of the hurricanes of 2005, 30 purchasers reported that

there were price increases,4

 temporary supply disruptions, energy surcharges, and increased demand for

imported PSF. *** reported that *** claimed “force majeure” on existing orders and then imposed a ***

per-pound increase through the end of 2005, forcing it to cancel orders. *** reported that it has a

long-term partnership with its supplier so availability is not an issue, but that the price increase after the

hurricanes affected its profitability. *** reported that the hurricanes interfered with the production of raw

materials. *** reported that foreign suppliers increased prices for certain PSF during that time as well. 

Producers and importers reported that there were raw material shortages and price increases. Importers

also reported that the situation led to an increased demand for imported certain PSF, due to allocation and

short supplies from U.S. producers, and one importer reported that U.S. producers implemented raw

material surcharges. *** reported that U.S. customers attempted to find replacement products at

reasonable prices from producers in Asia.

The sensitivity of domestic supply of certain PSF to changes in price depends on such factors as

the existence of excess capacity, the level of inventories in relation to sales, the ease of shifting

production to other products, and the existence of export markets. Based on available information, U.S.

certain PSF producers are likely to respond to changes in demand with moderate changes in the quantity

of shipments of U.S.-produced certain PSF to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to the

moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of unused capacity, some export

shipments, low levels of inventories, and some production alternatives.

Industry capacity

U.S. producers’ reported capacity utilization for certain PSF decreased from 82.5 percent in 2004

to 73.9 percent in 2006 (see table III-2).5

 The levels of capacity utilization suggest that the industry has

some ability to expand output in response to changes in price.

Alternative markets

U.S. producers’ export shipments, as a share of total shipments, increased from 6.9 percent in

2004 to 11.3 percent in 2006 (see table III-5), and this moderate level of exports during the period
 6

 DAK reported that after it closed its related Polykron facility in Mexico in mid-2005, it has increased its exports

from U.S. production facilities. Hearing transcript, p. 151 (McNaull).

 7

 Two U.S. producers reported that changing from one PSF product to another is relatively simple and not very

time consuming. Hearing transcript, pp. 60-61 (Chandrl and Katz).

 8

 These data have been revised since the prehearing report to exclude ***.

 9

 Conference transcript, p. 26 (Barfield) and p. 43 (Magrath).

II-4

indicates that domestic producers may be able to shift shipments between the United States and other

markets in response to price changes.6

Inventory levels

Inventories are a small portion of total shipments by U.S. producers; nonetheless, U.S. producers’

inventories, as a share of total shipments, rose from 4.9 percent in 2004 to 7.6 percent in 2006 (see table

III-8).

Production alternatives

Most U.S. producers are able to shift production from certain PSF to other products in response to

changing market conditions. The machinery and equipment used in various stages of PSF production are

also used to make other products. Additional products include polyester carpet fiber (typically 10-18

denier cut 6-8 inches in length), polyester staple fiber for spinning and textiles (typically less than 3

denier), and, to a lesser degree, nylon fibers and specialty fibers. Five of the seven responding producers

reported that they produce other products on the same machinery and equipment or using the same

production and related workers as used in the production of certain PSF.7

Subject Imports

Based on available information, producers in China are likely to respond to changes in demand

with potentially large changes in the quantity of shipments of certain PSF to the U.S. market. The main

contributing factors to the high degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of unused capacity,

the continued substantial growth in new capacity, and the existence of alternate markets.8

Industry capacity

Chinese producers’ reported capacity utilization for certain PSF increased from *** percent in

2004 to *** percent in 2006 (see table VII-2).

Alternative markets

Chinese producers’ export shipments, as a share of total shipments, increased from *** percent in

2004 to *** percent in 2006 (see table VII-2). A large percentage of Chinese producers’ export

shipments have been to the United States. Since March 2005, Chinese PSF has been subject to

antidumping duties when exported to the EU.9

Inventory levels

Chinese producers’ inventories of certain PSF, as a share of total shipments, increased from ***

percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2005, before falling back to *** percent in 2006 (see table VII-2).
 10 The National Association of Home Builders forecasts that housing starts will drop further in 2007 before

rebounding somewhat in 2008. Petitioners’ prehearing brief, exh. 1.

II-5

Nonsubject Imports

Imports of certain PSF are also available from Korea and Taiwan, and, to a lesser extent, India,

Indonesia, Mexico, Thailand, and other countries. Imports from nonsubject countries decreased from

2004 to 2006.

U.S. Demand

Demand Characteristics

From 2004 to 2006, apparent U.S. consumption of certain PSF declined by 5.4 percent based on

quantity and increased 10.1 percent based on value. The overall demand for certain PSF depends upon

the demand for a variety of end-use applications. Certain PSF is used in the production of furniture

(stuffing for couches and chairs), bedding (including mattress pads, pillows, comforters, sleeping bags,

and pet beds), and insulation and filtration products. As a result, demand is generally related to the

amount of housing-related activity in the economy, and demand for all end uses generally tracks overall

economic activity. Housing starts, used in the PSF industry as an indicator of furniture and bedding

demand, grew during 2004 through early 2006, but then fell through the end of 2006 (figure II-1).10

Figure II-1

Certain PSF: Quarterly averages of seasonally adjusted annual rates of housing starts, January

2004-December 2006

Source: U.S. Census Bureau data at www.census.gov/const/starts_cust.xls.

1,500

1,600

1,700

1,800

1,900

2,000

2,100

2,200

JanMar

2004 

AprJun

2004

JulSep

2004

OctDec

2004

JanMar

2005

AprJun

2005

JulSep

2005

OctDec

2005

JanMar

2006

AprJun

2006

JulSep

2006

OctDec

2006

Thousands of units
 11 Seven purchasers reported that they did not know how demand within the U.S. market has changed, and three

purchasers did not answer the question. *** reported that since September 2005, the market has been flooded with

Chinese imported PSF but did not explain how demand has changed.

 12 It is likely that there have been increased imports of furniture, rather than high-loft pillows or comforters, due

to shipping costs. Hearing transcript, pp. 76-77 (McNaull).

 13 Both the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) and the State of California have considered

new flammability requirements for upholstered furniture, mattresses, and bedclothing. The CPSC approved a new

flammability standard for mattresses in February 2006. CPSC press release found at

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06091.html, retrieved February 8, 2007. Insituform reported that

flammability regulations have caused PSF users to switch to substitute products. Insituform’s posthearing brief, p.

13 and exh. 2. DAK reported that it does not think that flammability regulations were a factor in any decline in

apparent consumption. Hearing transcript, pp. 92-93 (McNaull).

II-6

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked how demand for certain PSF had changed since

January 1, 2004. Two producers, 2 of the 17 responding importers, and 14 of the 28 responding

purchasers11 reported that demand for certain PSF had decreased in the last three years, with most citing

the effects of increased imports of finished products that use PSF12 and the decline of manufacturing

activity in the United States. *** reported that flammability regulations for bedding has decreased

demand for certain PSF.13

Two producers, nine importers, and nine purchasers reported that demand for certain PSF has

increased since 2004, with one importer reporting that certain PSF has been used to replace foam in some

cushions, and one importer reporting that PSF demand follows the growth in the home textiles and

housing markets. One purchaser reported that the price of substitutes has caused increased demand for

certain PSF, and another purchaser reported that demand has increased because applications for certain

PSF have been marketed more effectively. *** reported that demand for certain PSF increases at

approximately 1 to 2 percent per year, in line with such factors as housing starts and population growth,

and *** reported that demand in the non-wovens industry grows at approximately 9 percent per year. ***

reported that there have been improvements in product quality and the environmental manufacturing

processes. One importer and two purchasers reported that demand increased in 2005 but then decreased

in 2006.

Three producers, five importers, and three purchasers reported that demand has been largely

unchanged since 2004. *** reported that the increased demand for products that use certain PSF has been

met by increased imports of finished goods.

Twenty-two of 28 responding purchasers who are end users reported that the demand for their

firms’ final products that use certain PSF changed since 2004, with 12 citing increases in demand for their

final products and 11 citing decreases in demand for their final products.

Purchasers were asked if the certain PSF market is subject to business cycles or conditions of

competition distinctive to certain PSF. Thirteen purchasers reported that there are distinctive business

cycles or conditions of competition, and 18 purchasers reported that there were not; the other 7 purchasers

did not answer the question. Ten purchasers reported that the volatility of raw material pricing was a

significant condition of competition; one purchaser reported that there are seasonal buying patterns for

upholstered furniture; and one purchaser reported that the conversion of some PSF manufacturing lines

and the shutdown of others has been a distinctive condition of competition. Thirteen purchasers reported

that there had been changes in business cycles or conditions of competition for certain PSF since 2004,

with three purchasers citing effects from the 2005 hurricanes, three citing the manufacturing decline in the

United States, one citing the improvement in quality of Asian-based PSF producers, and one citing the

antidumping actions initiated by domestic producers.

Eighteen of the 37 responding purchasers reported that they have made significant changes in

their purchasing patterns in the last three years. Six purchasers reported increased use of imported PSF,

with two reporting that the change was due to high U.S. prices. *** reported that it has started to work
 14 *** reported that there has been increased demand in the U.S. market for hollow recycled PSF, and so it has

increased its purchases from China and decreased its purchases from Korea, where the primary type of PSF is solid

recycled.

II-7

directly with PSF manufacturers, rather than buying certain PSF through distributors; *** reported that it

now carries more inventory; and *** reported that it bids monthly due to price fluctuations.

Purchasers were asked specifically whether their purchasing patterns for certain PSF from

domestic, subject, and nonsubject sources had changed in the past three years. Thirteen purchasers

reported that their purchases of U.S.-produced PSF have decreased, citing price, availability, and changes

in demand trends as reasons for the decrease. Four purchasers reported that they have increased

purchases from U.S. producers, citing shipping costs, increases in demand, and better quality as reasons

for the increase. Sixteen purchasers reported increasing purchases of imports from China due to lower

prices, availability, quality, a wider product range, a global sourcing strategy, a direct relationship with

the suppliers, and the identification of new suppliers.14 Ten purchasers reported increased purchases of

nonsubject imports, and eight purchasers reported decreased purchases of nonsubject imports.

Substitute Products

Although some substitutes for certain PSF exist, they come with limitations on their ability to

supplant certain PSF in every application due to different relative prices and the characteristics demanded

by end users. Substitute products for certain PSF cited by producers, importers, and purchasers include

cotton, down, polyurethane foam, continuous filament tow, undetermined textile waste, rayon fiber,

shoddy, coconut fiber and waste, PLA fiber, and FR viscose fiber. Two producers, 5 importers, and 15

purchasers reported that there are no substitutes for certain PSF. Only four purchasers and two importers

reported that the price of these substitutes has affected the price of certain PSF.

Cost Share

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to provide information on the cost share of

certain PSF relative to the end products in which it is used. Reported cost shares varied widely, some

depending on the market segment; the range was from 13 to 65 percent for pillows; 2 to 80 percent for

comforters and other bedding components; 8 to 60 percent for furniture; and 48 to 80 percent for batting. 

Importers and purchasers also reported that the cost share of PSF was 17 percent for sleeping bags, 25 to

30 percent for pet beds, and 25 percent for filters.

Demand Outside the United States

Purchasers were asked how demand for certain PSF outside the United States has changed since

2004. Thirteen purchasers reported that demand for certain PSF has increased in the rest of the world,

with most citing increased manufacturing of finished products and general economic growth, specifically

in Asia. Three purchasers reported that demand for certain PSF has been unchanged outside of the United

States, 1 purchaser reported that it has decreased, and 18 purchasers reported that they did not know how

demand has changed outside of the United States.

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported certain PSF depends upon such factors

as relative prices, quality, and conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order

and delivery dates, payment terms, product services, etc.). Based on available data, staff believes that
 15 Conference transcript, p. 17 (Bermish). However, petitioners reported that there is a difference between

conjugate and non-conjugate, based on cost and fill capacity. Conference transcript, pp. 23-24 (Barfield). In

addition, dry PSF carries a slight price premium because the dry market is smaller. Conference transcript, pp. 55-56

(Barfield). U.S. producers have characterized PSF as a continuum of product types, reporting that there may be

differences among the types and that not all types of PSF are completely interchangeable. Petitioners’ prehearing

brief, pp. 33-34.

 16 Conference transcript, pp. 47-48 (Bermish).

II-8

there may be some differences between domestic and imported certain PSF, but because they are

generally used in the same end-use products, there is a moderate-to-high degree of substitution between

PSF produced in the United States and China and between certain PSF produced in the United States and

that which is produced in nonsubject countries.

This section is based primarily on the responses of 38 purchasers that accounted for

approximately 53.4 percent of total consumption of certain PSF in 2006. Twenty-seven purchasers

described themselves as end users, seven as distributors, three as processors, and one as an end user and a

processor. The firms who distribute or resell certain PSF reported selling primarily to furniture and

bedding manufacturers. Purchasers tended to purchase primarily from U.S. and nonsubject sources,

although reported purchases of Chinese certain PSF increased substantially during the period (table II-3).

Table II-3

Certain PSF: Total reported U.S. purchases, by source, 2004-061

Country

2004 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

United States 306,600 291,205 242,138

China2 14,966 56,692 130,260

Nonsubject 199,682 224,632 197,639

 1 Some purchasers listed foreign suppliers in section VI (supplier identification) of the purchaser questionnaire, and so the

data in this table may include quantities of direct imports along with purchased quantities from importers. *** reported data but

could not specify the country of origin, and so its data are not included in this table. Nonsubject countries include India,

Indonesia, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, and Thailand.

 2

 These data may include purchases of imports from ***.

Note.--Not all purchasers reported data for each year. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Certain PSF can be made from virgin materials or recycled/regenerated materials. In addition,

certain PSF is available in different forms, including slick or dry, hollow or solid, and conjugate or nonconjugate. Petitioners reported that customers do not request virgin or recycled and that the various forms

of PSF have similar characteristics and can be used for all end uses.15 In addition, certain PSF is also

available in different colors. Petitioners reported that since certain PSF is used as fill, color is not an

important characteristic.16 However, some importers and purchasers reported that differences in the input

material (virgin or recycled/regenerated), as well as differences in fiber forms and color, can be

significant, depending on the desired end use, price, and quality standards.

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked about the interchangeability of different forms

of certain PSF (table II-4). Three producers reported that virgin PSF and regenerated PSF are sometimes

used interchangeably, and two reported that they are always used interchangeably. Twelve importers
II-9

reported that virgin PSF and regenerated PSF are sometimes used interchangeably; four reported that they

are never used interchangeably; and one reported that they are usually used interchangeably. Twenty-six

purchasers reported that virgin PSF and regenerated PSF are sometimes used interchangeably; nine

reported that they are never used interchangeably; two reported that they are usually used

interchangeably; and one reported that they are always used interchangeably. Three purchasers reported

that interchangeability depended on price and availability. *** reported that lower-end goods generally

call for regenerated PSF, and higher-end goods generally call for virgin PSF. *** reported that virgin and

regenerated PSF can be blended together to reduce the overall cost because regenerated tends to be less

expensive but virgin performs better.

Table II-4

Certain PSF: U.S. producers’, importers’, and purchasers’ perceived degree of interchangeability

between various forms of certain PSF

Item Always Usually Sometimes Never

Virgin PSF vs. regenerated PSF:

 Producers 2030

 Importers 0 1 12 4

 Purchasers 1 2 26 9

Solid PSF vs. hollow PSF:

 Producers 1121

 Importers 0 1 11 6

 Purchasers 0 2 21 15

Slick PSF vs. dry PSF:

 Producers 0222

 Importers 0 1 3 14

 Purchasers 0 2 9 27

Conjugate PSF vs. mechanically crimped PSF:

 Producers 2020

 Importers 0 1 13 3

 Purchasers 0 2 20 16

White PSF vs. colored PSF:

 Producers 1221

 Importers 0 2 10 6

 Purchasers 2 1 14 21

Note.--Not all producers, importers, or purchasers responded for each comparison. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 17 Wellman produces a 3-D high-void PSF product that is mechanically crimped and that is directly competitive

with and used in the same end-use markets as conjugate PSF. Hearing transcript, pp. 24-25 (Katz).

 18 Ashley Furniture reported that conjugate PSF is produced using separate production lines and workers than

those used for production of non-conjugate PSF. Ashley Furniture’s prehearing brief, p. 7.

 19 *** reported that it has *** manufacturing plants and that the machinery that processes PSF differs from plant

to plant as well as within each plant. It reported that quality and processability are more important than price in

(continued...)

II-10

Two producers reported that solid PSF and hollow PSF are sometimes used interchangeably; one

reported that they are always used interchangeably; one reported that they are usually used

interchangeably; and one reported that they are never used interchangeably. Eleven importers reported

that solid PSF and hollow PSF are sometimes used interchangeably; six reported that they are never used

interchangeably; and one reported that they are usually used interchangeably. Twenty-one purchasers

reported that solid PSF and hollow PSF are sometimes used interchangeably; 15 reported that they are

never used interchangeably; and 2 reported that they are usually used interchangeably. One purchaser

reported that solid PSF can be used only if hollow is not available, and one reported that this kind of

interchangeability is uncommon.

Two producers reported that slick PSF and dry PSF are usually used interchangeably; two

reported that they are sometimes used interchangeably; and two reported that they are never used

interchangeably. Fourteen importers reported that slick PSF and dry PSF are never used interchangeably;

three reported that they are sometimes used interchangeably; and one reported that they are usually used

interchangeably. Twenty-seven purchasers reported that slick PSF and dry PSF are never used

interchangeably; nine reported that they are sometimes used interchangeably; and two reported that they

are usually used interchangeably. Five purchasers reported that differing quality standards or

processability prohibit interchangeably. *** reported that end users use slick PSF when this slippery

finish is required in order to process smoothly through machines and to achieve a particular smooth and

soft touch in the finished product, and *** reported that in the furniture manufacturing industry, the

machinery used is not equipped to substitute dry PSF for slick.

Two producers reported that conjugate PSF and mechanically crimped PSF are always used

interchangeably, and two reported that they are sometimes used interchangeably.17 Thirteen importers

reported that conjugate PSF and mechanically crimped PSF are sometimes used interchangeably; three

reported that they are never used interchangeably; and one reported that they are usually used

interchangeably.18 Twenty purchasers reported that conjugate PSF and mechanically crimped PSF are

sometimes used interchangeably; 16 reported that they are never used interchangeably; and 2 reported

that they are usually used interchangeably. Two purchasers reported that interchangeable use depends on

the manufacturers’ equipment. *** reported that conjugate PSF has higher quality, fill power, and

performance and that it is also significantly more expensive than mechanically crimped PSF.

Two producers reported that white PSF and colored PSF are usually used interchangeably; two

reported that they are sometimes used interchangeably; one reported that they are always used

interchangeably; and one reported that they are never used interchangeably. Ten importers reported that

white PSF and colored PSF are sometimes used interchangeably; six reported that they are never used

interchangeably; and two reported that they are usually used interchangeably. Twenty-one purchasers

reported that white PSF and colored PSF are never used interchangeably; 14 reported that they are

sometimes used interchangeably; 1 reported that they are usually used interchangeably; and 2 reported

that they are always used interchangeably. One purchaser reported that interchangeable use depends on

the covering used, and one reported that a color range of white to gray may sometimes be acceptable.

Purchasers were asked to identify the three major factors considered by their firm in selecting

suppliers of certain PSF (table II-5). Price was the most commonly cited factor overall, but 21 of the 38

responding purchasers reported that quality was the most important factor, compared to the 10 that

reported that price was the most important factor.19 The next most commonly cited factor was
 19 (...continued)

determining where to source PSF. In addition, it reported that U.S. producers have failed to keep up with the

product improvements made by foreign suppliers.

 20 *** reported that “yield” refers to the quality of the fiber; a high-yield fiber fills more space than a low-yield

fiber.

 21 *** reported that ***. *** also reported that it pays more for *** from Indonesia because comparable products

from U.S. and other producers do not meet the specific high-fill power qualities.

II-11

availability. Other factors reported by more than one firm were delivery/service, consistency, and

reliability.

Purchasers were asked to identify the factors that determined the quality of certain PSF. Factors

cited include processability, performance, color, appearance, bulkiness, consistency, elongation, loft

retention, and finish. Several purchasers cited the necessity of meeting the firm’s specifications and the

importance of testing the PSF.

Table II-5

Certain PSF: Most important factors in selecting a supplier, as reported by purchasers

Factor First Second Third

Quality 21 10 2

Price 10 16 9

Availability 4 5 14

Delivery/service 0 3 3

Consistency 0 1 2

Reliability 0 0 4

Other 3 3 3

Note.--Other category includes traditional supplier, the product meets technical specifications, yield, resiliency,

willingness to adapt to the requirements, technical support, processability, terms, and contractual arrangements. 

When asked for other factors, two purchasers reported that technical support was an important factor in purchasing

decisions, and two purchasers reported that delivery terms was an important factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked if they always, usually, sometimes, or never purchased the lowest-priced

certain PSF. Eighteen purchasers reported sometimes purchasing the lowest-priced product and 13

usually purchased the lowest-priced PSF. Five purchasers reported never purchasing the lowest-priced

product, and two purchasers reported always purchasing the lowest-priced product. Purchasers also were

asked if they purchased certain PSF from one source although a comparable product was available from

another source at a lower price. Nineteen purchasers responded, reporting reasons why they purchased

from a source that might be more expensive. Reasons provided included availability, quality, lead times,

reliability, processability, consistency, and long-term relationships with suppliers. *** reported that price

is not an issue if performance of a conjugate can improve its yield20 and costed performance, and ***

reported that it buys *** in the United States to keep supply lines flowing and inventory lower, even

though the price is higher.21

In rating the importance of 19 factors in their purchasing decisions (table II-6), 37 of the 38

responding purchasers rated availability as very important; 35 reported that product consistency is very

important; 33 reported that price is very important; 30 reported that reliability of supply is very important;

27 reported that quality meets industry standards is very important; and 26 reported that delivery time is

very important.
II-12

Table II-6

Certain PSF: Importance of purchase factors, as reported by purchasers

Factor

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Number of firms responding

Availability 37 1 0

Color 13 23 2

Delivery terms 21 15 2

Delivery time 26 10 2

Discounts offered 8 20 10

Extension of credit 12 18 8

Minimum quantity

requirements 5 16 17

Packaging 8 21 9

Price 33 5 0

Product consistency 35 3 0

Product range 6 24 8

Quality meets industry

standards 27 9 2

Quality exceeds industry

standards 11 19 7

Reliability of supply 30 8 0

Technical support/service 12 20 5

U.S. transportation costs 12 18 7

Whether bi-component or

mechanical conjugated 14 15 8

Whether recycled or virgin 15 18 4

Whether solid or hollow 20 11 5

Note.--Not all purchasers responded for each factor. One purchaser reported that yield is very important, and one

purchaser reported that resiliency is very important.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked for a country-by-country comparison using some of the same factors. 

Sixteen purchasers completed this comparison for the United States and China (table II-7), with three

reporting that the U.S. and Chinese products were comparable in all categories. Half or more of the

responding purchasers reported that the U.S. and Chinese products were comparable in most categories. 

Seven of the 15 purchasers reported that the U.S. product was superior for delivery time and extension of

credit, and 7 reported that the Chinese product was superior for a lower price.

Nine purchasers completed the comparison for the United States and Korea, a nonsubject country,

and 10 purchasers completed the comparison for the United States and other nonsubject countries. The

majority of purchasers reported that the U.S. product and the Korean product were comparable in all

product categories, with the exception of lower price, where five of the purchasers reported that the
II-13

Korean product was superior. Half or more of the responding purchasers reported that the U.S. product

and the product from nonsubject countries were comparable in all product categories. Five purchasers

reported that the U.S. product was superior for delivery terms, delivery time, extension of credit, product

range, and technical support/service; and five purchasers reported that the nonsubject product was

superior for a lower price.

Table II-7

Certain PSF: Comparisons of the U.S. and Chinese products and the U.S. and nonsubject

products, as reported by purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs China

U.S. vs nonsubject

(Korea)

U.S. vs all other

nonsubject

SC I SC I SC I

Number of firms responding 

Availability 484162460

Color 3 12 1 1 7 1 2 7 1

Delivery terms 4 10 2 1 6 2 5 5 0

Delivery time 7 7 2 3 5 1 5 5 0

Discounts offered 2 13 1063073

Extension of credit 7 8 1 2 5 2 5 5 0

Lower price 1 8 7 0 4 5 1 4 5

Lower U.S.

transportation costs 5 11 0 2 7 0 1 9 0

Minimum quantity

requirements 3 11 2261460

Packaging 3 13 0 0 9 0 2 8 0

Product consistency 484351451

Product range 1 11 4162550

Quality meets industry

standards 2 10 4171451

Quality exceeds industry

standards 2 10 4270460

Reliability of supply 493171460

Technical

support/service 592351550

Note.--Not all purchasers responded for every factor. S=first-listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’

products are comparable; I=first-listed country’s product is inferior. One purchaser reported that the U.S. is inferior

to China in terms of yield. All other nonsubject includes Taiwan, India, and Indonesia.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 22 ***.

 23 *** reported that S10 is only available from producers in nonsubject countries, and *** reported that binder

and conjugate are only available from producers in Taiwan.

 24 *** reported that siliconized PSF has not been offered to it by U.S. producers, only by producers in China, and

*** reported that recycled hollow siliconized fiber above 7 denier in both mechanical crimp and conjugate has only

been available in any volume from producers in China.

 25 *** reported that it maintains very stringent requirements and that the process for certification involves an

evaluation of the ability of the supplier to meet unique technical specifications, a review of the technical data sheet, a

site visit, obtaining samples, conducting field trials, and reviewing other selection criteria. It also reported that this

process takes from 9 to 15 months.

 26 *** reported that it takes six to eight months to qualify a new supplier, *** reported that it takes over one year,

*** reported that it takes 6 to 18 months, and *** reported that it takes 30 days if the PSF is in stock in the United

States or 60 to 90 days if the PSF must be shipped from overseas.

 27 *** reported that certain PSF from *** have failed to meet technical specifications. In addition, it reported that

PSF supplied by a Chinese producer and an Indian producer was not compatible with its machinery.

II-14

Eleven of the 38 responding purchasers reported specifically ordering certain PSF from one

country in particular over other possible sources of supply. Reasons cited for buying from a particular

country included quality, price, availability, and yield. *** reported that China and Korea use the lowestcost recycled resins, which are not available in the United States in any quantity, and *** reported that

U.S.-made certain PSF facilitates the adjustment of product specifications. *** reported that *** is not

produced in the United States. *** reported that its customers request recycled hollow siliconized PSF

from China because the quality of that type of PSF is not available from other sources.

Purchasers also were asked if certain grades, types, or sizes of certain PSF were available from

only a single source, and 11 purchasers responded in the affirmative. Two purchasers reported that

certain types are only available from a U.S. producer,22 two reported that certain types are only available

from nonsubject countries,23 and two reported that certain types are only available from China.24 In

addition, *** reported that some types of PSF carry a brand and thus are only available from a single

source, and *** reported that certain patented specialty polyesters, such as fire-retardant, anti-bacterial,

special cross-section designs, and increased hollow fibers, are only available from a single source.

Purchasers were asked if they required certification or prequalification for suppliers of certain

PSF. Twenty-one purchasers required it for all of their purchases; one reported that it is required for 80

percent of its purchases; one reported that it is required for 75 percent of its purchases; and one reported

that it is required for 25 percent of its purchases. Purchasers reported that the certification or

prequalification process may involve samples of the product, lab tests, trial runs, customer trials, site

visits, or extensive testing.25

Thirty-five purchasers reported factors considered in qualifying a new supplier, including quality,

price, delivery, availability, reliability, consistency, testing, service, and shipping times. The time

required to qualify a new supplier was reported by 22 purchasers and ranged from one day to six

months.26

Purchasers were asked if any suppliers had failed to qualify their product or lost their approved

status. Ten of the 38 responding firms reported that suppliers had failed to qualify. Three purchasers

cited Wellman as having failed to qualify; two cited Nan Ya; two cited BMT; two cited Stein; and three

cited Chinese producers. Other purchasers reported that Superior Products, DAK, Bernet International,

Faith Group, and suppliers from nonsubject countries had failed to qualify. The most commonly cited

reasons for failure included poor or inconsistent quality and poor processability.27

Purchasers were asked how often they are aware of the country of origin of the certain PSF they

purchase, how often they know the manufacturer, and how often their buyers are interested in the country

of origin of the goods they supply. Their responses are summarized in the following tabulation:
 28 ***.

 29 *** reported a lead time of eight weeks, regardless of whether the product is from inventory or produced to

order.

II-15

Factor Always Usually Sometimes Never

Aware of product’s country of origin? 25 8 3 2

Know manufacturer of the product? 13 14 9 2

Buyers aware of/interested in product’s country of origin? 9 7 11 10

Purchasers also were asked how often domestically produced, subject imports, and nonsubject

imports of certain PSF meet minimum quality specifications. Their responses are summarized in the

following tabulation:28

Source Always Usually Sometimes Never

Domestically produced 10 21 3 1

Subject imports - China 8 16 4 0

Nonsubject imports - Korea 6 9 1 2

Nonsubject imports - Taiwan 3 4 1 1

Nonsubject imports - India 0 4 2 1

Nonsubject imports - Thailand 0 4 0 0

Most purchasers reported contacting anywhere from two to four suppliers before making a

purchase. Six purchasers reported contacting only one supplier, and four purchasers reported contacting

five or more suppliers. Seventeen of the 38 responding purchasers reported changing suppliers in the last

three years. Six reported adding Chinese suppliers; four reported adding U.S. producers; and two

reported dropping U.S. producers.

Most purchasers reported that they were unaware of new suppliers, either domestic or foreign,

that entered the market in the last three years. Three reported that U.S. Fiber entered the market, one

reported that a Chinese supplier entered the market, and one reported that an Indian supplier entered the

market.

Lead Times

Among producers, three reported that 90 percent or more of their certain PSF sales were from

inventories, with lead times ranging from one day to three weeks. Four producers reported that 70

percent or more of sales were produced to order, with lead times ranging from one to six weeks.

Eight of the 12 responding importers reported that half or more of their PSF sales were produced

to order, with four importers reporting that 75 percent or more of sales were from inventory. Importers

reported lead times of 1 day to 4 weeks for product sold from inventory and 4 to 12 weeks for product

produced to order.29
 30 Four importers, ***, reported that their original responses to these questions concerning interchageability

would not change with the exclusion of ***.

 31 *** also reported that compatibility with the machinery used to process the PSF varies and thus performance of

the machines vary with PSF from different sources.

II-16

Comparisons of Domestic Products, Subject Imports, and Nonsubject Imports

Producers, importers,30 and purchasers were asked to assess how interchangeable certain PSF

from the United States is with certain PSF from both subject and nonsubject countries. Their responses

are summarized in table II-8. Most producers reported that PSF from the United States and from other

countries is always or frequently interchangeable. The majority of importers reported that PSF from the

United States and other countries is only sometimes interchangeable. Purchasers were divided, with some

reporting that the products are always or frequently interchangeable, some reporting that the products are

sometimes interchangeable, and a small minority reporting that they are never interchangeable.

Table II-8

Certain PSF: U.S. producers’, importers’, and purchasers’ perceived degree of interchangeability

of products produced in the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers

AFSN0AFSN0AFSN0

U.S. vs. China 2 3 2 0 0 2 4 10 2 1 3 9 14 2 4

U.S. vs. other countries 2 2 2 0 0 1 4 10 1 2 2 10 10 1 3

China vs. other

countries 2 2 2 0 0 1 6 8 1 1 1 9 11 0 6

 1 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if PSF produced in the United States and in other countries

is used interchangeably.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never, and “0” = No familiarity.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Many firms reported factors that limit or preclude interchangeable use, with commonly cited

factors including denier, crimp, color, finish, and processability. Among importers, three reported that

the certain PSF that they purchase is not available from certain suppliers in the United States. Two

importers reported that the necessity of meeting technical specifications or the overall quality of the PSF

may limit interchangeable use. *** reported that most U.S. customers require either high-end fiber or an

inexpensive grade of PSF, and that domestic certain PSF cannot be used in either case.

Among purchasers, *** reported that certification or qualification may preclude

interchangeability. *** reported that the PSF it uses is rarely available from U.S. producers so that it

must purchase imports. *** reported that it prefers to use U.S.-produced PSF. *** reported that PSF of a

certain quality is not available from U.S. producers and that some PSF is not interchangeable, regardless

of the country of origin. *** reported that U.S. producers have superior virgin PSF, Chinese producers

have superior recycled fibers, and Korean producers have superior conjugate PSF. *** reported that

certain PSF is not a commodity product and with so many sources producing PSF with different physical 

characteristics, quality, and colors, certain PSF from different sources is not easily interchangeable.31 ***

reported that the majority of manufacturers in Eastern China are geared to serve the furniture

manufacturing industry, and therefore, the level of knowledge and the quality of the PSF they produce has

increased.
 32 Parties were asked to provide comments on the elasticity estimates; no comments were received.

II-17

Producers and importers were asked to assess how often differences other than price were

significant in sales of certain PSF from the United States, subject countries, and nonsubject countries

(table II-9). Generally, producers and importers reported that differences other than price were sometimes

or never significant. A minority of importers reported that non-price factors were always or frequently

significant. *** reported that there are longer lead times for imports of certain PSF. *** reported that

U.S. producers do not have the availability and do not produce the colored types and fire-retardant types

of certain PSF that its customers require. *** reported that the quality of the certain PSF and the support 

from suppliers in Asia is better than that of U.S. producers. *** reported that it matches a specific

product with a specific customer need and that although the unit price may be a determining factor, the

products are uniquely marketed based on customer demands and specifications.

Table II-9

Certain PSF: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived importance of factors other than price in

sales of product produced in the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers

AFSN0AFSN0

U.S. vs. China 0 1 3 3 0 4 1 9 2 1

U.S. vs. other countries 0033041722

China vs. other countries 0033041911

 1 Producers and importers were asked if differences other than price between PSF produced in the United States

and in other countries are a significant factor in their sales of the products.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never, and “0” = No familiarity.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES32

U.S. Supply Elasticity

The domestic supply elasticity for certain PSF measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied

by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of PSF. The elasticity of domestic supply depends

on several factors including the level of excess capacity, the ease with which producers can alter capacity,

producers’ ability to shift to production of other products, the existence of inventories, and the availability

of alternate markets for U.S.-produced PSF. Earlier analysis of these factors indicates that the U.S.

industry is likely to be able to moderately increase or decrease shipments to the U.S. market; an estimate

in the range of 3 to 5 is suggested.

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for certain PSF measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity

demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of PSF. This estimate depends on factors discussed earlier

such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products. Based on the available

information, the aggregate demand elasticity for certain PSF is likely to be in a range of -0.5 to -1.5.
 33 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject

imports and the domestic like products to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch

from the U.S. product to the subject products (or vice versa) when prices change.

II-18

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products.33 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

and conditions of sale. Based on available information, the elasticity of substitution between domestic

and subject certain PSF is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4 for products from China.
 1

 One small domestic producer, ***, did not provide a response to the final phase questionnaire. Its response to

the preliminary phase questionnaire was used, and ***.

 2

 The firms are DAK, Formed Fiber Technologies, Invista, Nan Ya, United Synthetics, U.S. Fibers, and Wellman.

 3

 The firms are ***.

 4

 As reported during the five-year reviews of certain PSF from Korea and Taiwan, *** entered *** (confidential

staff report, INV-DD-022, February 15, 2006, p. I-20, fn. 48), and Intercontinental Polymers filed for bankruptcy in

October 2003 and exited the certain PSF industry (Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos.

731-TA-825-826 (Review), USITC Publication 3843, March 2006, table I-2, fn. 1).

 5

 *** producers’ questionnaire response, section II-2.

 6

 Conference transcript, p. 12 (McNaull). 

 7

 *** producers’ questionnaire response, section II-2.

 8

 Hearing transcript, p. 31 (Chandrl).

 9

 Conjugate production was increased to 100 percent capacity in 2007. Hearing transcript, p. 32 (Chandrl).

 10 Conference transcript, p. 25 (Barfield).

III-1

PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND

EMPLOYMENT

Information in this part of the report is based on the questionnaire responses of eight firms that

accounted for virtually all U.S. production of certain PSF during 2006.1

U.S. PRODUCERS

The Commission sent producers’ questionnaires to *** firms: seven firms identified in the

petition2

 and two firms identified as possible additional producers of the subject product in a review of

industry sources.3

 Responses were received from *** firms. *** certified no production while eight

certified production of certain PSF during the period of investigation. Since the original investigations

on certain PSF from Korea and Taiwan, the domestic industry has contracted.4

 The entire domestic

industry is now comprised of eight companies. Details regarding each responding firm’s production

location(s), share of 2006 production, parent company, and position on the petition are presented in table

III-1.

Petitioners collectively accounted for *** percent of domestic production in 2006. ***, the

largest domestic producer, accounted for *** percent of domestic production of certain PSF in the United

States in 2006. *** accounted for *** and *** percent of domestic production in 2006, respectively. 

***, which ***, is the *** largest producer and accounted for *** percent of production in 2006. 

The Commission asked domestic producers to describe any plant openings, relocations,

expansions, acquisitions, consolidations, closures, and prolonged shutdowns. *** reported closing or

reducing production lines of certain PSF. 

*** indicated that “in November 2004 ***.”5

 DAK *** indicated that its facility located in

Mexico was closed in July 2005 to re-balance and improve capacity utilization of U.S. facilities.6

 ***

indicated that its *** no longer produces certain PSF and capacity has been reduced by *** percent at its

***.7

 At the hearing, Nan Ya explained that one of its highest margin products, its conjugate PSF

production line, was shut down in June 2006 due to increased lower priced imports {of certain PSF} from

China.”8

 Nan Ya reported a resumption of 50 percent of its conjugate production capacity in September

20069

 due to “renewed customer inquiries.”10 Wellman reported that it “remov{ed} 80 out of . . . 240 
III-2

Table III-1

Certain PSF: U.S. producers, positions on petition, plant locations, and shares of U.S. production

in 2006

Firm Name

Position

on petition Plant locations Parent company

Share of

reported

2006 U.S.

production

(percent)

DAK Americas,

LLC (“DAK”)

Support

(petitioner)

Charlotte, NC

Leland, NC

Moncks Corner, SC

***% Alfa S.A. de C.V. ***

(Mexico)

***% Alpek S.A. de C.V. *** 

(Mexico)

***

Formed Fiber

Tech. (“FFT”)1

*** Sumter, SC ***% Morgenthaler Partners

(U.S.) 

***

Invista S.a.r.l.

(“Invista”)

*** Salisbury, NC

Spartanburg, SC

***% Koch Industries (U.S.) ***

Nan Ya Plastics

Corp., America

Support

(petitioner)

Lake City, SC ***% Nan Ya Plastics

(Taiwan)

***

Palmetto

Synthetics, LLC

(“Palmetto”)

Support Kings Tree, SC ***% Palmetto Synthetics ***

United Synthetics,

Inc. (“United

Synthetics”)

*** Lafayette, GA ***% Korea Synthetics Fiber,

Inc. (Korea)2

*** (U.S.)3

***

U.S. Fibers4 *** Laurens, SC

Trenton, SC

***% U.S. Fibers (U.S.) ***

Wellman, Inc. Support

(petitioner)

Darlington, SC

Johnsonville, SC

(closed)

Marion, SC

(closed)

***% Wellman (U.S.) ***

1

 ***.

2

 Found at company website www.unitedsynthetics.com/about_USI.html, retrieved on February 9, 2007. 3

 ***.

4

 *** did not provide a response to the final phase questionnaire; data from its preliminary questionnaire

response were used, with 2006 data estimated to equal 2005 data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires unless otherwise noted. 
 11 Ibid, p. 67 (Bermish).

 12 Hearing transcript, p. 88 (Katz).

 13 Wellman reported that this facility was the only PSF plant in the United States dedicated fully to the recycling

of used, non-biodegradable plastic materials and other industrial waste into new polyester fibers. Petitioners’

prehearing brief, p. 28. Moreover, the facility manufactured certain PSF from regenerated and recycled inputs. 

Hearing transcript, p. 23 (Katz).

 14 *** producers’ questionnaire preliminary phase response, section II-2.

 15 Hearing transcript, p. 31 (Chandrl).

 16 *** producers’ questionnaire response, section II-2.

 17 *** producers’ questionnaire response, section II-2.

 18 Producers’ questionnaire response, section II-4-A.

 19 *** producers’ questionnaire response, section II-4-A.

 20 *** producers’ questionnaire preliminary phase response, section II-4.

 21 Hearing transcript, p. 88 (Lane)

 22 Conference transcript, p. 25 (Barfield).

 23 Polyester filament yarn is a textile polyester product that undergoes an entirely different production process,

with separate engineering and equipment design resulting in completely distinct production models. Ibid, p. 62

(Barfield).

III-3

million pounds”11 of production capacity at its Johnsonville plant in 2005, before permanently shutting

down the facility in the December 2006.12 13 It explained that due to low margins, the equipment was “too

costly to operate,”14 and that “this shutdown was a direct result of competition from lower priced imports

from China.”15

Both *** declared force majeure (an unexpected or uncontrollable event) during the period of

investigation. In September 2005, *** declared force majeure at its *** plant located in ***, due to raw

material shortages, and reduced shipments to its customers. The force majeure lasted for about two

months16. *** also declared force majeure due to shortage of critical raw material supplies following

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Furthermore, *** instituted raw material surcharges due to the short-term

elevated cost in raw materials.17

The Commission asked domestic producers to describe the constraints that limit production

capacity. Most responded that equipment design and configuration limited capacity to produce certain

PSF.18 However, *** indicated that production capacity is constrained by market demand. Currently, one

production line at *** is shut down due to lack of market opportunity19. *** reported that its “production

lines have been modified to produce certain polyester staple fiber, {and if they were to produce} other

fibers on the same lines, conversion cost {would be} high.”20

The Commission asked producers to identify related firms that import or produce certain PSF. 

*** and *** reported related production facilities in Mexico: ***21 and ***, respectively. Nan Ya

reported at the conference that its parent company recently completed the construction of a polyester

filament manufacturing facility in Kunshan, China.22 That facility will produce polyester filament yarn

that is not related to certain PSF.23
 24 Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1104 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3878,

August 2006, p. 19 and fn. 64.

 25 Respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 2-3.

 26 *** producers’ questionnaire response, section II-4-B.

III-4

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

Data regarding U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization of certain PSF are

presented in table III-2. In its preliminary determination in this investigation, the Commission noted that

“we intend...to explore further the bases for reporting industry capacity and unused capacity data.”24 

Table III-2 has been adjusted to rationalize allocation of capacity and unused capacity among certain PSF

and other products that can be produced on the same equipment and machinery. No domestic producer

reported involvement in toll arrangements or production of certain PSF in a Foreign Trade Zone since

January 2004.

Reported U.S. capacity to produce certain PSF decreased over the period of investigation. 

Overall, capacity decreased 12.9 percent between 2004 and 2006. Production followed the same pattern,

decreasing by 21.9 percent during 2004-06. Capacity utilization was at its highest in 2004 at 82.5

percent, and its lowest in 2006 at 73.9 percent.

During the preliminary phase of this investigation, respondents argued that for certain U.S.

producers that produce both subject and nonsubject PSF products on the same machinery and equipment,

the capacity data for certain PSF as reported by those firms are unrealistic.25 Specifically, respondents

questioned the accuracy of the capacity allocations between subject and nonsubject PSF products. In

response to the Commission’s question regarding the methodology used to calculate production capacity,

two companies, ***, reported that it was based on actual production capability of the machinery

necessary to produce certain PSF. *** indicated that its production capacity calculation was based on

“the ratio of sales of certain PSF to total sales at each manufacturing facility to total capacity at the

facility.”26 Data regarding certain U.S. producers’ capacity utilization for certain PSF, all other products,

and all products as reported by the listed companies, without adjustments, are presented in table III-3. 

*** firms (accounting for approximately *** percent of total reported U.S. production of the

subject product during 2006) reportedly produce other products, such as fine denier PSF, PSF for

carpeting, low-melt PSF, and other PSF products (e.g., nylon), on the same machinery and equipment

used to produce the subject PSF. Their product mix is reportedly determined by market demand. Data on

capacity and production for all such products by U.S. manufacturers are presented in table III-4. 

Production of alternative products decreased irregularly over the period of investigation. During 2004-06

overall production of nonsubject products decreased *** percent. Certain PSF accounted for a declining

share of total production, to about *** during 2006, while PSF less than 3 denier accounted for slightly

more than *** of production throughout the period of investigation. Collectively, PSF for carpeting, lowmelt, and other PSF represented *** percent of production during 2006.
III-5

Table III-2

Certain PSF: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2004-06

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Capacity (1,000 pounds)

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

Total 889,565 843,606 774,943

Production (1,000 pounds)

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

Total 733,677 657,064 573,068

Capacity utilization (percent)

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

Average 82.5 77.9 73.9

Note 1: The capacity data for ***, have been adjusted to rationalize allocation of capacity and unused capactiy among certain

PSF and other products that can be produced on the same equipment and machinery.

Note 2: *** did not provide a response in the final phase of the investigation. Data do not reconcile with the recent five-year

reviews of certain PSF from Korea and Taiwan. ***. Data do not reconcile with the preliminary phase of this investigation. ***. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
III-6

Table III-3

Certain PSF and other products: U.S. capacity utilization, 2004-06

* * * * * * *

Table III-4

Certain PSF: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and share of total production for all products,

2004-06

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Annual capacity for all products1 2,056,000 1,996,000 1,944,000

Production of certain PSF 658,215 568,591 471,454

Production of nonsubject products:

PSF of less than 3 denier2 905,597 867,317 785,382

PSF for carpeting *** *** ***

Low-melt *** *** ***

Other3 *** *** ***

Subtotal, nonsubject 1,029,864 1,053,498 933,997

Total production 1,688,079 1,622,089 1,405,451

Share of total production (percent)

Certain PSF 39.0 35.1 33.5

Nonsubject products:

PSF of less than 3 denier2 53.6 53.5 55.9

PSF for carpeting *** *** ***

Low-melt *** *** ***

Other3 *** *** ***

Total, nonsubject products 61.0 64.9 66.5

Capacity utilization (percent)

All products 82.1 81.3 72.3

Certain PSF 82.5 77.9 73.9

1

 *** revised its capacity of all products from *** pounds in the reviews to *** pounds in this investigation. *** indicated that

“***.” E-mails from ***, July 31, 2006. 2

 *** increased its reported production of PSF less than 3 denier from *** pounds in the reviews to *** pounds in this

investigation. See footnote 1. 3

 *** did not report production broken down by product group in the recent reviews on certain PSF from Korea and Taiwan.

Note: Differences in data for 2004 when compared to corresponding tables in the Commission recent five-year reviews of certain

PSF are attributable to ***. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
III-7

U.S. PRODUCERS’ DOMESTIC SHIPMENTS AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS

Data on the domestic industry’s U.S. and export shipments of certain PSF are presented in table

III-5. Between 2004 and 2006, the quantity and value of the industry’s U.S. shipments decreased by 26.4

percent and 7.0 percent, respectively. One firm, ***, reported internal consumption of certain PSF and no

firms reported transfers to related firms during the period of investigation.

U.S. shipments, as a share of total shipments, decreased during 2004-06 by 4.4 percentage points. 

Exports increased over the period of investigation from 6.9 percent of total shipments during 2004 to 11.3

percent of total shipments during 2006. Reported markets for U.S. producers’ exports of certain PSF are

Canada, Mexico, South America, and Europe. *** accounted for *** percent of all exports during 2006. 

The average unit value of exports was consistently lower than the average unit value of U.S. shipments,

by approximately three to five percent.

Data on the U.S. industry’s U.S. shipments by product type are presented in table III-6. ***

producers reported shipments of virgin PSF. *** of these producers reported shipments of conjugate

virgin PSF, and *** reported shipments of non-conjugate virgin PSF. Virgin PSF accounted for *** 

percent of U.S. shipments in 2006, while regenerated accounted for *** percent, and other *** percent. 

Shipments of virgin and regenerated decreased during 2004-06, while shipments of other PSF increased

by *** percent. *** shipped *** pounds of non-conjugate virgin PSF in 2006, *** percent more nonconjugate virgin PSF and *** percent more total virgin PSF, than the next largest domestic producer, ***. 

*** was the *** domestic producer to report shipments of conjugate or non-conjugate regenerated PSF

during the period of investigation. Of *** total 2006 shipments, shipments of regenerated PSF

represented *** percent. *** reported shipments of other PSF during the period of investigation.
III-8

Table III-5

Certain PSF: U.S. producers’ shipments, by type, 2004-06

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. shipments:1

Commercial shipments *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** ***

Total U.S. shipments 679,807 602,990 500,161

Export shipments 50,186 54,444 63,830

Total 729,993 657,434 563,991

Value ($1,000)

U.S. shipments:1

Commercial shipments *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** ***

Total U.S. shipments 396,805 427,879 369,142

Export shipments 27,391 37,501 44,616

Total 424,196 465,380 413,758

Unit value (per pound)

U.S. shipments:1

Commercial shipments $*** $*** $***

Internal consumption *** *** ***

Total U.S. shipments 0.58 0.71 0.74

Export shipments 0.55 0.69 0.70

Average 0.58 0.71 0.73

Share of shipment quantity (percent)

U.S. shipments:1

Commercial shipments *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** ***

Total U.S. shipments 93.1 91.7 88.7

Export shipments 6.9 8.3 11.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

1

 *** reported internal consumption during the period of investigation. No firms reported transfers to related firms

during the period of investigation. 

Note: Data for 2004 do not reconcile with the recent five-year reviews of certain PSF from Korea and Taiwan. ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 27 *** producers’ questionnaire response, e-mail supplement.

 28 Producers’ questionnaire response, sections I-5, I-6 and I-7.

III-9

Table III-6

Certain PSF: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, by product groups, 2004-06

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS

Data on U.S. producers’ imports of certain PSF from China and nonsubject sources are presented

in table III-7. As shown, *** reported U.S. imports of certain PSF from nonsubject sources in order to fill

out broad product lines. ***, with a *** percent ownership interest in ***, reported imports of certain

PSF from China and nonsubject sources. 

Table III-7

Certain PSF: U.S. producers’ U.S. production, U.S. imports (including those from affiliated firms),

and ratio of imports to production, 2004-06

* * * * * * *

Although no U.S. producer identified any related firms that import certain PSF from China into

the United States or export certain PSF from China to the United States, *** reported that ***, an

importer of certain PSF from China, was a part owner of the company.27 Two companies, ***, reported

that a related firm produces and imports certain PSF from countries other than China into the United

States or exports certain PSF from countries other than China into the United States.28

The Commission asked domestic producers if they had related firms, either domestic or foreign,

engaged in the production of certain PSF. *** all reported having related firms that produce certain PSF. 

*** indicated that its manufacturing facility in ***, ***, produced PSF during the period of investigation,

***.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Domestic producers’ end-of-period inventories of certain PSF are presented in table III-8. 

Inventories increased by 19.2 percent during 2004-06. Inventories as a share of production, U.S.

shipments, and total shipments peaked in 2006.

Table III-8

Certain PSF: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2004-06

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Inventories (1,000 pounds)1 35,984 36,520 42,901

Ratio of inventories to production (percent) 4.9 5.6 7.5

Ratio of inventories to U.S. shipments (percent) 5.3 6.1 8.6

Ratio of inventories to total shipments (percent) 4.9 5.6 7.6

1

 ***. E-mail from ***, July 26, 2006.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 29 *** producers’ questionnaire response, section II-9. 

 30 Hearing transcript, p. 84 (Chandrl).

 31 Hearing transcript, pp. 86-87 (Katz).

 32 Hearing transcript, pp. 21 and 88 (Katz).

 33 *** producers’ questionnaire responses, sections II-3 & II-5.

 34 *** producers’ questionnaire responses, sections II-3 & II-5.

III-10

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

U.S. producers’ aggregate employment data for certain PSF are presented in table III-9. The

number of production and related workers (“PRWs”) employed by U.S. certain PSF producers decreased

by 9.1 percent between 2004 and 2006, or by 101 workers. Over this period, hourly wages decreased by

0.4 percent while productivity decreased by 15.2 percent, resulting in a 38.8 percent increase in unit labor

costs from 2004 to 2006. ***, the largest employer of certain PSF PRWs over the period of investigation,

decreased PRWs by ***, while ***, the second largest employer of certain PSF PRWs, increased PRWs

by ***.29 At the hearing, Nan Ya noted that the apparent decline in productivity over the period of

investigation is due to the nature of the industry which requires “equal or slightly fewer number of

workers...regardless if {the production} is running 100% or 50%.”30 Wellman asserted, moreover, that

employees required a certain amount of training, and that it was very expensive to hire, layoff, and rehire

employees, so a basic level of employee staffing is kept that will “allow you to ride during some of the

rough times, but will provide you with the service you need when you are running full.”31 Wellman also

noted that the layoff of over 360 employees at the Johnsonville plant that closed in December 2006,

would not be reflected in the employment or productivity calculations.32

Table III-9

Certain PSF: U.S. producers’ employment-related indicators, 2004-06

Item Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Production and related workers (PRWs) 1,106 1,001 968

Hours worked by PRWs (1,000 hours) 2,314 2,185 2,079

Wages paid to PRWs ($1,000)1 40,035 39,636 37,052

Hourly wages $17.30 $18.14 $17.82

Productivity (pounds2

 produced per hour) 316.6 294.1 268.6

Unit labor costs (per pound)2 $0.05 $0.06 $0.07

Hours worked per PRW 2,092 2,183 2,148

1

 ***. E-mail from ***, July 26, 2006.

2

 Productivity and unit labor costs are calculated using data from companies reporting both production and

employment data. *** did not report employment data.

Note 1.--Data for 2004 do not reconcile with the recent five-year reviews of certain PSF from Korea and Taiwan. ***.

Note 2.–***. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

The Commission asked domestic producers to describe their ability to use the same employees to

produce other products on the same equipment and machinery used in the production of certain PSF. 

Two firms indicated that they are unable to produce alternative products on their machinery and

equipment using the same employees.33 *** indicated some ability to do so.34
 1

 Importers’ questionnaire response, section II-2. Responses by DAK and Invista to this question are included in

the “U.S. producers” section of Part III of this report.

 2 ***’s importers’ questionnaire preliminary phase response, section II-2. ***.

 3 Importers’ questionnaire response, section I-4.

 4 Importers’ questionnaire response, section I-5.

 5 Based on ***’s reported total imports compared to official Commerce statistics (importers’ questionnaire

response, section II-9).

 6 ***’s reported imports from China compared to imports from all sources (importers’ questionnaire response,

section II-9).

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, 

AND MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

Importer questionnaires were sent to 30 firms believed to be importers of subject PSF, as well as

to all U.S. producers. Usable questionnaire responses were received from 21 companies which in 2006

accounted for 81.8 percent of subject U.S. imports of certain PSF from China (based on official

Commerce statistics). Seven importers certified that they did not import certain PSF. Eighteen

companies reported imports of certain PSF from China during 2004-06, while three reported imports

exclusively from other sources. Four firms reported imports exclusively from China. The six largest

responding importers of PSF from China in 2006 were ***, collectively accounting for 69.9 percent of

reported imports of certain PSF from China in 2006. A list of U.S. importers of certain PSF, country

sources, and shares of reported 2006 imports from China and other sources is presented in table IV-1. 

Responding U.S. importers of certain PSF are concentrated in two major geographic areas: seven

reported to be in the Carolinas and seven reported to be in the Mid-Atlantic region. The remaining

responding importers are located throughout the continental United States, from Maine to California. 

The Commission asked importers to describe any openings, relocations, expansions, acquisitions,

consolidations, closures, and prolonged shutdowns. Of the 21 importers, three reported plant closures in

their questionnaire responses: ***.1

 *** indicated that in 2004 its manufacturing division was closed due

to cheap low-end imports of nonsubject product from China.2

 

The Commission asked importers to identify related firms that import or produce certain PSF. 

Three importers, ***, indicated that they have related firms that import certain PSF from China.3

 In

questionnaire responses, three firms, ***, identified related production facilities.4

 *** identified *** as a

related firm, while *** identified ***. 

The largest importer of certain PSF in 2006 was ***. *** accounted for *** percent5

 of all

imports of certain PSF in 2006, with *** percent6

 of their imports originating from China. By

comparison, the next largest importer in terms of imported quantity in 2006 was ***, and it imported only

one-third the amount *** imported. *** accounted for *** percent of all imports of certain PSF, with

*** percent of their aggregated imports of certain PSF originating from China.
IV-2

Table IV-1

Certain PSF: U.S. importers, source(s) of imports, U.S. headquarters, parent companies, and shares

of total imports in 2006

Firm

Source

of

imports

HeadquartersParent

company

Share of imports (percent)

China

(subject) Other Total

Arlee Home Fashions (“Arlee”) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ashley Furniture *** *** *** *** *** ***

Bernet International (“Bernet”) *** *** *** *** *** ***

BMT Corporation (“BMT”) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Consolidated Fibers, Inc. (“Consolidated”) *** *** *** *** *** ***

DAK *** *** *** *** *** ***

Fibertex Corporation (“Fibertex”) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Honda Trading America Corporation

(“Honda Trading”)

*** *** *** *** *** ***

Insituform Technologies (“Insituform”) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Invista *** *** *** *** *** ***

Jeffco Fibres, Inc. (“Jeffco”) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Leigh Fibers, Inc. (“Leigh Fibers”) *** *** *** *** *** ***

PC Components, LLC *** *** *** *** *** ***

Polymer Group *** *** *** *** *** ***

Raytex Fabrics (“Raytex”) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Southwest Textiles *** *** *** *** *** ***

Springs Global US, Inc. (“Springs Global”) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Stein Fibers, Ltd. (“Stein”) *** *** *** *** *** ***

United Furniture Industries, Inc. (“United

Furniture”)

*** *** *** *** *** ***

VFT, Inc. *** *** *** *** *** ***

William Barnet & Son LLC (“William

Barnet”)

*** *** *** *** *** ***

All other (non-responses)1 18.3 8.2 11.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

1

 Calculated as the difference between questionnaire response data and official Commerce statistics.

Note: *** responded to the preliminary phase questionnaire, but not to the final phase questionnaire.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 7 See Part I of this report for information on Commerce’s de minimis finding for Cixi Jiangnan. 

 8 During 2004, 2005, and 2006, U.S. imports of certain PSF from Cixi Jiangnan accounted for *** percent, by

quantity, of total U.S. imports from China, respectively.

 9 Data and graphic presentations regarding average unit values are based on official Commerce statistics, and

include nonsubject certain PSF from Cixi Jiangnan.

 10 Data in the table were revised following receipt of supplemental information from U.S. importers of certain

PSF from Cixi Jiangnan: ***.

IV-3

U.S. IMPORTS

Imports of certain PSF from China and from all nonsubject sources for the period 2004-06 are

presented in table IV-2. Commerce found de minimis margins for foreign producer, Cixi Jiangnan.7

Accordingly, imports of certain PSF from Cixi Jiangnan are treated in this report as nonsubject imports.8

U.S. imports of certain PSF from China (subject) increased over this period by *** percent. U.S.

imports from nonsubject sources decreased by *** percent over the period. Among the largest nonsubject

import sources, imports from Korea decreased 19.1 percent during 2004-06 while imports from Indonesia

increased 242.7 percent over the same period. The total quantity of certain PSF imports from all sources

increased from 2004 to 2006 by 26.3 percent. 

China’s (subject) share of total imports increased more than any other country’s during 2004-06,

rising from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2006. Nonsubject imports accounted for a decreasing

share of total U.S. imports during 2004-06. 

The average unit value of certain PSF from China (subject) increased *** percent between 2004

and 2006. The unit value of nonsubject imports also followed this trend, increasing *** percent during

2004–06. Information regarding average unit values of certain PSF from China and nonsubject sources is

presented in figures IV-1 and IV-2.9

Data on imports from China (subject) by product type are presented in table IV-3.10 Imports of

certain PSF from China (subject) were present in all product groups, but primarily in regenerated product,

specifically non-conjugate regenerated product.
IV-4

Table IV-2

Certain PSF: U.S. imports, by sources, 2004-06

Source

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

China (subject) *** *** ***

Other:

Korea 209,856 184,832 169,865

Taiwan 72,376 54,139 37,471

Subtotal 282,232 238,971 207,336

China (nonsubject) *** *** ***

Thailand 41,848 43,475 33,177

Indonesia 12,657 24,830 43,378

India 16,147 21,090 20,914

Mexico 11,854 9,702 242

All other 12,549 16,743 23,990

Subtotal, nonsubject imports *** *** ***

Total imports 448,567 549,684 566,731

Landed, duty paid value ($1,000)

China (subject) *** *** ***

Other:

Korea 100,920 108,549 93,297

Taiwan 43,262 36,971 24,549

Subtotal 14,181 145,521 117,847

China (nonsubject) *** *** ***

Thailand 26,694 31,598 23,282

Indonesia 6,722 15,438 27,199

India 7,654 12,205 12,199

Mexico 10,644 9,468 125

All other 8,694 16,753 22,901

Subtotal, nonsubject imports *** *** ***

Total imports 240,799 342,599 333,096

Table continued on next page.
IV-5

Table IV-2 -- Continued

Certain PSF: U.S. imports, by sources, 2004-06

Source

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Unit value (per pound)

China (subject) $*** $*** $***

Other:

Korea 0.48 0.59 0.55

Taiwan 0.60 0.68 0.66

Subtotal 0.51 0.61 0.57

China (nonsubject) *** *** ***

Thailand 0.64 0.73 0.70

Indonesia 0.53 0.62 0.63

India 0.47 0.58 0.58

Mexico 0.90 0.98 0.52

All other 0.69 1.00 0.95

Subtotal, nonsubject imports *** *** ***

Total imports 0.54 0.62 0.59

Share of quantity (percent)

China (subject) *** *** ***

Other:

Korea 46.8 33.6 30.0

Taiwan 16.1 9.8 6.6

Subtotal 62.9 43.5 36.6

China (nonsubject) *** *** ***

Thailand 9.3 7.9 5.9

Indonesia 2.8 4.5 7.7

India 3.6 3.8 3.7

Mexico 2.6 1.8 0.0

All other 2.8 3.0 4.2

Subtotal, nonsubject imports *** *** ***

Total imports 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table continued on next page.
IV-6

Table IV-2 -- Continued

Certain PSF: U.S. imports, by sources, 2004-06

Source

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Share of value (percent)

China (subject) *** *** ***

Other:

Korea 41.9 31.7 28.0

Taiwan 18.0 10.8 7.4

Subtotal 59.9 42.5 35.4

China (nonsubject) *** *** ***

Thailand 11.1 9.2 7.0

Indonesia 2.8 4.5 8.2

India 3.2 3.6 3.7

Mexico 4.4 2.8 0.0

All other 3.6 4.9 6.9

Subtotal, nonsubject imports *** *** ***

Total imports 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: No firm reported imports via temporary import bonds, bonded warehouses, or foreign trade zones.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics and proprietary Customs data.

Figure IV-1

Certain PSF: Quarterly import average unit values, by major source, January 2004-December 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure IV-2

Certain PSF: Quantity of imports, on the basis of average unit values, 2004-06

* * * * * * *

Table IV-3

Certain PSF: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of imports from China (subject), by product groups,

2004-06

* * * * * * *
 11 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of

Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 19690, April

19, 2007.

 12 Section 735(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(4)(A)(i)).

 13 Section 735(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(4)(A)(ii)).

IV-7

THE QUESTION OF NEGLIGIBLE IMPORTS

The statute (section 771(24)(A)(i) of the Act) provides that imports from a subject country

corresponding to the domestic like product are negligible if such imports account for less than 3 percent of

the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States in the most recent 12-month period for

which data are available that precedes the filing of the petition - in this case June 2005 through May 2006. 

Based on official Commerce statistics (adjusted to exclude imports from Cixi Jiangnan) for that 12-month

period, imports of certain PSF from China (subject) accounted for *** percent of total U.S. imports as

indicated in the tabulation below:

Source

Imports (1,000

pounds)

Share of total

imports (percent)

China (subject) *** ***

Other sources *** ***

Total 612,418 100.0

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics and proprietary Customs data.

CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES

In its final affirmative determination of LTFV sales of the subject product from China, Commerce

found that critical circumstances exist for certain imports of PSF from China. In particular, Commerce

determined that critical circumstances exist for imports from Far Eastern Industries (Shanghai) Ltd. (“Far

Eastern”), while critical circumstances do not exist for imports from producers/exporters Cixi Jiangnan and

Ningbo Dafa, and producers/exporters in the Separate-Rates Applicants and the PRC-wide entity

categories.11

If the Commission determines that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason

of LTFV imports of certain PSF from China, it must further determine “whether the imports subject to the

affirmative {Commerce critical circumstances} determination . . . are likely to undermine seriously the

remedial effect of the antidumping duty order to be issued.”12 The statute further provides that in making

this determination, the Commission shall consider:

(I) the timing and the volume of the imports,

(II) a rapid increase in inventories of the imports, and 

(III) any other circumstances indicating that the remedial effect of the

antidumping order will be seriously undermined.13

Monthly import data and end-of-period inventories of imports of certain PSF from Far Eastern,

for the 6-month periods before and after the filing of the petition (January-June 2006 and July-December

2006), are presented in table IV-4, and figures IV-3 and IV-4. As indicated in the table, imports of certain
 14 Based on petitioners’ submissions, Commerce found that “some importers, exporters or producers of PSF from

the PRC had knowledge that a proceeding was likely as of March 2006, and knew, or should have known, by March

2006, that their imports were likely to be subject to an antidumping duty investigation.” Commerce’s Critical

Circumstances Decision Memorandum, April 10, 2007, p. 3. Therefore, Commerce made its final affirmative

determination of critical circumstances with respect to Far Eastern, based, in part, on a comparison of data for the

nine-month periods before and after “knowledge” of the petition; i.e., July 2005-March 2006 and April-December

2006. Based on these comparison periods, imports of certain PSF from Far Eastern increased by *** percent after

Far Eastern knew or should have known of the impending antidumping duty petition, according to Commerce (see

tabulation below).

* * * * * * *

IV-8

PSF from Far Eastern during the six-month period after the filing of the petition decreased *** percent

based on export data provided by Far Eastern, and *** percent based on proprietary import data from

Customs, but increased *** percent based on the questionnaire responses of importers of certain PSF

from Far Eastern.14

Table IV-4

Certain PSF: Exports to the U.S., U.S. imports, and end-of-period inventories of product from Far

Eastern, January 2006-December 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure IV-3

Certain PSF: Monthly U.S. imports from Far Eastern, January 2006-December 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure IV-4

Certain PSF: Monthly end-of-period inventories of imports from Far Eastern, January 2006-

December 2006

* * * * * * *

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES

Data on apparent U.S. consumption of certain PSF are presented in table IV-5. The quantity of

apparent U.S. consumption increased 2.2 percent from 2004 to 2005, before decreasing 7.4 percent

between 2005 and 2006. The value of apparent U.S. consumption followed a similar pattern, rising by

20.8 percent between 2004 and 2005, then falling by 8.9 percent between 2005 and 2006.

Shares of apparent U.S. consumption of certain PSF are presented in table IV-6. U.S. producers’

share of apparent U.S. consumption quantity and value steadily declined during 2004-06 by 13.4 and 9.7

percentage points, respectively. Over the same period, imports from China (subject) gained ***

percentage points of market share in terms of quantity. The share of apparent U.S. consumption of

imports of certain PSF from nonsubject sources decreased from 2004 to 2006. The share of apparent U.S.

consumption of imports of certain PSF from all sources increased from 2004 to 2006.
IV-9

Table IV-5

Certain PSF: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption,

2004-06

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 679,807 602,990 500,161

U.S. imports from:

China (subject) *** *** ***

Other:

Korea 209,856 184,832 169,865

Taiwan 72,376 54,139 37,471

Subtotal 282,232 238,971 207,336

China (nonsubject) *** *** ***

Thailand 41,848 43,475 33,177

Indonesia 12,657 24,830 43,378

India 16,147 21,090 20,914

Mexico 11,854 9,702 242

All other 12,549 16,743 23,990

Subtotal, nonsubject imports *** *** ***

Total imports 448,568 549,684 566,730

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,128,375 1,152,674 1,066,891

Table continued on next page.
IV-10

Table IV-5--Continued

Certain PSF: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S.

consumption, 2004-06

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Value ($1,000)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 396,805 427,879 369,142

U.S. imports from:

China (subject) *** *** ***

Other:

Korea 100,920 108,549 93,297

Taiwan 43,262 36,971 24,549

Subtotal 144,181 145,521 117,847

China (nonsubject) *** *** ***

Thailand 26,694 31,598 23,282

Indonesia 6,722 15,438 27,199

India 7,654 12,205 12,199

Mexico 10,644 9,468 125

All other 8,694 16,753 22,901

Subtotal, nonsubject imports *** *** ***

Total imports 240,799 342,599 333,096

Apparent U.S. consumption 637,604 770,478 702,238

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires, official Commerce statistics,

and proprietary Customs data.
IV-11

Table IV-6

Certain PSF: U.S. market shares, 2004-06

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,128,375 1,152,674 1,066,891

Value ($1,000)

Apparent U.S. consumption 637,604 770,478 702,238

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 60.2 52.3 46.9

U.S. imports from:

China (subject) *** *** ***

Other:

Korea 18.6 16.0 15.9

Taiwan 6.4 4.7 3.5

Subtotal 25.0 20.7 19.4

China (nonsubject) *** *** ***

Thailand 3.7 3.8 3.1

Indonesia 1.1 2.2 4.1

India 1.4 1.8 2.0

Mexico 1.1 0.8 0.0

All other 1.1 1.5 2.2

Subtotal, nonsubject imports *** *** ***

Total imports 39.8 47.7 53.1

Table continued on next page.
IV-12

Table IV-6--Continued

Certain PSF: U.S. market shares, 2004-06

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 62.2 55.5 52.6

U.S. imports from:

China (subject) *** *** ***

Other:

Korea 15.8 14.1 13.3

Taiwan 6.8 4.8 3.5

Subtotal 22.6 18.9 16.8

China (nonsubject) *** *** ***

Thailand 4.2 4.1 3.3

Indonesia 1.1 2.0 3.9

India 1.2 1.6 1.7

Mexico 1.7 1.2 0.0

All other 1.4 2.2 3.3

Subtotal, nonsubject imports *** *** ***

Total imports 37.8 44.5 47.4

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires, official Commerce statistics,

and proprietary Customs data.
IV-13

RATIO OF SUBJECT IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Information concerning the ratio of subject imports to U.S. production of certain PSF is presented

in table IV-7. U.S. imports from subject Chinese sources as a ratio to production increased sharply from

2004 to 2006. Imports from nonsubject sources as a ratio to production increased slightly from 2004 to

2006.

Table IV-7

Certain PSF: Ratio of import quantity to U.S. production, 2004-06

Source

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. production 733,677 657,064 573,068

Ratios to production (percent)

U.S. imports from:

China (subject) *** *** ***

Other:

Korea 28.6 28.1 29.6

Taiwan 9.9 8.2 6.5

Subtotal 38.5 36.4 36.2

China (nonsubject) *** *** ***

Thailand 5.7 6.6 5.8

Indonesia 1.7 3.8 7.6

India 2.2 3.2 3.6

Mexico 1.6 1.5 0.0

All other 1.7 2.5 4.2

Subtotal, nonsubject imports *** *** ***

Total imports 61.1 83.7 98.9

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires, official Commerce statistics,

and proprietary Customs data.
 
 1

 Conference transcript, p. 17 (Bermish).

 2

 Four U.S. producers ***, reported data on raw material costs.

 3

 At the end of 2006, crude oil prices were almost double what they were at the beginning of 2004 (found at

http://www.eia.doe.gov, retrieved January 30, 2007).

 4

 Wellman reported that it uses long-term contracts to secure supply of MEG and that there is only one supplier,

British Petroleum, of PTA in the United States. Hearing transcript, p. 105 (Katz). Nan Ya reported that it has its

own supply of MEG and that it purchases PTA from British Petroleum. Hearing transcript, pp. 105-106 (Chandrl). 

DAK reported that it manufactures PTA and that it has strategic supply arrangements for supply of MEG. Hearing

transcript, p. 106 (McNaull).

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Materials

Two raw materials, monoethylene glycol (“MEG”) and purified terephthalic acid (“PTA”),

together reportedly account for the majority of the cost of producing virgin PSF. Post-industrial and postconsumer waste materials, such as recycled PET bottles, fiber waste, filament waste, and popcorn chips,

are used for producing non-virgin, or recycled, PSF.1

 Weighted-average purchase prices for MEG, PTA,

and scrap, as reported by U.S. producers, are presented for 2004 through 2006 in figure V-1.2

 Prices for

all raw materials have risen during the period.

In addition, as MEG and PTA are petroleum-derived, the significant increase in the price of crude

oil during the period has increased the cost of producing virgin PSF.3

 *** reported that increased prices

for crude oil following the 2005 hurricanes affected the supply of PSF in the United States. *** also

reported that certain PSF pricing has always been closely tied to the cost of crude oil.

Producers and importers were asked to describe any trends in the prices of raw materials used to

produce certain PSF and whether they expect the trends to continue. All five responding producers

reported that prices for raw materials have risen since 2004, and two of the producers reported that they

expect this trend to continue.4

 Most importers also reported that the price of raw materials has increased,

and five importers reported that they expect to see flat or decreasing raw material prices in the near future. 

*** reported that it expects raw material prices to level off or maintain a slight continuous increase in

relation to overall supply and demand.
 5

 *** shipping a large percentage of its certain PSF over 1,000 miles.

 6

 *** reported that it shipped *** percent of its certain PSF over 1,000 miles but reported that it only serves the

*** geographic market, which is where its facility is located.

V-2

Figure V-1

Certain PSF: Weighted-average purchase prices reported by U.S. producers for MEG, PTA, and

scrap, 2004-06

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Transportation Costs to the United States

Transportation costs of imported certain PSF shipped from China to the United States (excluding

U.S. inland costs) are estimated to be equivalent to 12.6 percent of customs values in 2006. This estimate

is derived from official import data and represents the transportation and other charges on imports valued

on a c.i.f. basis, as compared with customs value.

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Producers estimated that U.S. inland transportation costs represent up to 6 percent of their costs

of certain PSF, and importers reported that transportation costs represent up to 15 percent of their total

costs. Four producers reported that they arranged delivery and shipped the vast majority of their PSF to

purchasers located between 101 and 1,000 miles away from their facilities throughout the United States.5

Three producers reported that purchasers arrange delivery. Among importers, 10 reported that they

arranged delivery, and 2 reported that purchasers arranged delivery. Seven importers reported that they

shipped 70 percent or more of their certain PSF to purchasers located 100 miles or less from their

facilities; two reported that they ship 85 percent or more 101 to 1,000 miles; and three reported that they

ship 40 percent or more over 1,000 miles.6

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

2004 2005 2006

MEG PTA Scrap

Dollars per pound
 7

 U.S. producers reported that price increase announcements are for all staple fiber products, not specific to PSF,

and are always followed by negotiations with individual purchasers so that the amount of the price increase may

vary. Conference transcript, p. 19 (Bermish).

V-3

Exchange Rates

Nominal exchange rate data for China are presented on a quarterly basis in figure V-2. Real

values for the Chinese yuan are not available.

Figure V-2

Exchange rate: Index of the nominal exchange rate of the Chinese currency relative to the U.S.

dollar, by quarters, January 2004-December 2006

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, retrieved from http://ifs.apdi.net/imf/about.asp

on April 5, 2007.

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

Producers and importers generally reported that pricing of certain PSF involves transaction-bytransaction negotiations based on prevailing market conditions.7

 One producer reported that customers

use import prices to negotiate, and one producer reported that it tries to meet its competitors’ pricing. 

Four importers reported that they use contracts for multiple shipments, and one reported using price lists

for some customers. *** reported that it attempts to make 6 to 10 percent profit, and *** reported that

prices are determined by demand and that it will negotiate for open orders. *** reported that *** sets

prices on conjugate PSF and that it attempts to price its imported PSF within *** cents per pound from

that price.

Seven purchasers reported that there is no firm they consider a price leader in the certain PSF

market. Of the 22 purchasers that reported firms as price leaders, 13 named U.S. producers, specifically

Nan Ya (8), Wellman (7), Invista (5), and DAK (4). Nine purchasers named importers Stein (6) and BMT

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2004 2005 2006

Jan-Mar 2004=100
 8

 *** reported that U.S. producers generally announce price changes 15 to 30 days in advance.

 9

 *** reported that 30 percent of its sales are quoted on an f.o.b. basis and 70 percent on a delivered basis.

 10 Three importers reported also having sales terms of net 45 or 60 days, and one importer reported sales terms of

1/10 net 30.

 11 *** reported information on long-term contract provisions, but it reported an average contract duration of ***

months, and so the data are presented here as short-term contracts per the definitions, which specify long-term

contracts as being more than 12 months in duration.

 12 *** reported that short-term contracts are less than one month in length.

V-4

(3) as price leaders. In describing how the firms exhibited price leadership, purchasers reported that these

firms generally were the first to give notice of price changes.8

Sales Terms and Discounts

Three producers and seven importers reported that they normally quote delivered prices; two

producers and four importers commonly quote on an f.o.b. basis; and two producers and three importers

reported doing both.9

 Producers’ and importers’ sales terms are generally net 30 days.10 Five of seven

responding producers reported that 70 percent or more of sales are on a spot basis, with one reporting that

the majority of its sales are on a long-term contract basis. One producer reported that 100 percent of its

sales are on a short-term contract basis. Among importers, six reported that 60 percent or more of sales

are on a short-term contract basis, with six reporting that 75 percent or more are on a spot basis. No

importer reported sales on a long-term contract basis.11

The two producers that reported some sales on a long-term contract basis reported that long-term

contracts are generally one to two years in length with no meet-or-release provisions. One producer

reported that renegotiations are possible and one reported that they are not. One producer reported that

quantity is fixed, and the other producer reported that neither price nor quantity is fixed. Producers

reported that short-term contracts are generally up to 12 months in length,12 with neither price nor

quantity fixed, renegotiations possible, and no meet-or-release provisions.

Importers reported that short-term contracts are generally from one to six months in length, with

both price and quantity fixed, no renegotiations, and no meet-or-release provisions.

Two producers and most importers reported no discounts, or at least no formal discount policy. 

One producer reported a quantity-based discount, one reported a discount for early payment, and one

reported offering both. Three importers reported having customer-specific discounts, with one reporting

that some customers have annual rebates and others have prompt-payment discounts.

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of certain PSF to provide quarterly data

for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of PSF that was shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market. 

Data were requested for the period January 2004 to December 2006. The products for which pricing data

were requested are as follows:
 13 “Virgin polyester staple fiber,” as used here, is single component, single crimp PSF that does not contain

regenerated fibers. Virgin fibers are made directly from raw materials and are characterized by the purity of the

whiteness of the fibers. “Regenerated polyester staple fiber,” as used here, is fiber that does not contain any virgin

fibers but is made from recycled PET stock. Blended virgin and regenerated fiber products do not fall within this

definition.

 14 Petitioners reported that combining certain PSF from both virgin and regenerated raw materials is appropriate

because there were similar patterns of underselling during the preliminary phase of the investigation (when data were

collected for virgin separately from regenerated) whether the products were analyzed separately or combined. 

Petitioners’ posthearing brief, app. 1, pp. 26-29. Ashley Furniture reported that there is a price difference between

virgin PSF and regenerated PSF and that it *** imports virgin conjugate PSF. Ashley Furniture’s posthearing brief,

p. 9 and hearing transcript, p. 238 (Plummer).

 15 “Conjugate polyester staple fiber,” as used here, is spiral/double crimp PSF made from two types of fiber (also

known as bi-component fiber) by either a chemical or mechanical process.

 16 Twelve of the 14 importers reported data for imports from China. Importers also reported data for imports from

nonsubject countries, specifically India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam, and

these data are included in app. E. *** reported separate pricing data for their imports from ***, and these data are

also included in app. E. *** reported that the original pricing data they submitted did not contain data for imports

from ***.

 17 *** reported delivered prices for its imports from China and imports from nonsubject countries.

V-5

Product 1.–Virgin and/or regenerated polyester staple fiber13–5-7 denier, solid, dry.14

Product 2.–Virgin and/or regenerated polyester staple fiber–5-7 denier, hollow, slick.

Product 3.–Virgin polyester staple fiber–12-15 denier, solid, dry.

Product 4.–Virgin polyester staple fiber–12-15 denier, hollow, slick.

Product 5.–Conjugate polyester staple fiber15–12-15 denier, hollow, slick.

Seven U.S. producers and 14 importers16 provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested

products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters.17 Pricing data reported

by these firms, shown in tables V-1 to V-5 and figures V-3 to V-7, accounted for 74.0 percent of U.S.

producers’ shipments of PSF in 2006 and 17.1 percent of U.S. imports from subject

manufacturers/exporters in China during 2006.

Price Trends

Among Commission pricing products, U.S. prices generally increased from January 2004 to

December 2006. Over the same period, Chinese prices generally increased through the first half of 2005

before leveling off or declining.
V-6

Table V-1

Certain PSF: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers

and importers of product 1,1

 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2004-

December 2006

Period

U.S. producers Imports from China

Quantity Price Quantity Price Margin

1,000 pounds Per pound 1,000 pounds Per pound Percent

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 55,427 $0.57 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 53,490 0.59 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 58,989 0.61 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 57,494 0.63 *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 52,217 0.70 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 51,226 0.72 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 51,930 0.74 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 44,631 0.78 *** *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 45,635 0.75 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 42,974 0.78 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 43,412 0.79 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 42,801 0.78 *** *** ***

 1 *** reported price data for imports of product 1 from ***, and these data are included in app. E.

Product 1.–Virgin and/or regenerated polyester staple fiber–5-7 denier, solid, dry.

Source: Compiled from information submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-7

Table V-2

Certain PSF: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers

and importers of product 2,1

 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2004-

December 2006

Period

U.S. producers Imports from China

Quantity Price Quantity Price Margin

1,000 pounds Per pound 1,000 pounds Per pound Percent

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 12,469 $0.52 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 11,378 0.55 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 18,474 0.57 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 23,585 0.62 *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 13,632 0.66 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 17,289 0.68 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 14,813 0.66 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 13,562 0.72 *** *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 7,726 0.67 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 8,637 0.65 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 16,354 0.70 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 12,016 0.70 *** *** ***

 1 *** reported price data for imports of product 2 from ***, and these data are included in app. E.

Product 2.–Virgin and/or regenerated polyester staple fiber–5-7 denier, hollow, slick.

Source: Compiled from information submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-8

Table V-3

Certain PSF: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers

and importers of product 3, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2004-

December 2006

Period

U.S. producers Imports from China

Quantity Price Quantity Price Margin

1,000 pounds Per pound 1,000 pounds Per pound Percent

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 17,649 $0.53 -- -- --

 Apr.-June 19,130 0.56 -- -- --

 July-Sept. 20,071 0.58 -- -- --

 Oct.-Dec. 24,101 0.60 -- -- --

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 23,614 0.66 -- -- --

 Apr.-June 24,818 0.67 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 23,241 0.67 -- -- --

 Oct.-Dec. 25,856 0.72 *** *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 26,257 0.68 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 25,320 0.66 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 20,900 0.69 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 19,893 0.70 *** *** ***

Product 3.–Virgin polyester staple fiber–12-15 denier, solid, dry.

Source: Compiled from information submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-9

Table V-4

Certain PSF: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers

and importers of product 4, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2004-

December 2006

* * * * * * *

Table V-5

Certain PSF: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers

and importers from China of product 5, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters,

January 2004-December 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure V-3

Certain PSF: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per pound as reported by U.S. producers and

importers of product 1, by quarters, January 2004-December 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure V-4

Certain PSF: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per pound as reported by U.S. producers and

importers of product 2, by quarters, January 2004-December 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure V-5

Certain PSF: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per pound as reported by U.S. producers and

importers of product 3, by quarters, January 2004-December 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure V-6

Certain PSF: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per pound as reported by U.S. producers and

importers of product 4, by quarters, January 2004-December 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure V-7

Certain PSF: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per pound as reported by U.S. producers and

importers of product 5, by quarters, January 2004-December 2006

* * * * * * *

Price Comparisons

As shown in table V-6, imports of all five products from China undersold the comparable U.S.

product in 37 of 54 comparisons.

Imports from China undersold U.S. product 1 in 9 of 12 quarters where comparisons were

possible, with margins of underselling ranging from 0.8 to 19.8 percent (table V-1). In the three quarters

where the Chinese product oversold the U.S. product, margins ranged from 6.0 to 11.1 percent.
 18 *** reported that it had both lost sales and lost revenues from ***, but it did not provide any additional

information, including the product, date of quote, quantity involved, price involved, country of origin, or import

price. Staff was unable to follow up on these allegations due to a lack of information.

 19 U.S. producers reported that the reported lost sales and lost revenues allegations are generally based on

information collected during telephone conversations with purchasers, and that documentation regarding the

identified import source is not always available. U.S. producers’ posthearing brief, exhibit 1, p. 6.

V-10

Imports from China undersold U.S. product 2 in 8 of the 12 quarters where comparisons were

possible, with margins of underselling ranging from 0.8 to 15.3 percent (table V-2). In the four quarters

where the product from China oversold the U.S. product, the margins ranged from 0.4 to 16.9 percent.

For product 3, imports from China undersold the U.S. product in all six quarters where

comparisons were possible, with margins of underselling ranging from 10.8 to 25.1 percent (table V-3).

Imports from China undersold U.S. product 4 in 7 of the 12 quarters where comparisons were

possible (table V-4). Margins of underselling ranged from 12.2 to 43.4 percent. In the five quarters

where the Chinese product oversold the U.S. product, the margins ranged from 3.0 to 22.1 percent. All of

the overselling was in 2004 and the first quarter of 2005.

For product 5, imports from China undersold the U.S. product in 7 of the 12 quarters where

comparisons were possible, with margins of underselling ranging from 5.6 to 25.9 percent (table V-5). In

the other quarters where the Chinese product oversold the U.S. product, the margins ranged from 0.3 to

4.1 percent.

Table V-6

Certain PSF: Instances of underselling/(overselling) and the range and average margins for

products 1-5, January 2004-December 2006

Product

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

1 9 0.8 to 19.8 13.3 3 6.0 to 11.1 7.8

2 8 0.8 to 15.3 8.7 4 0.4 to 16.9 5.1

3 6 10.8 to 25.1 18.9 0 -- --

4 7 12.2 to 43.4 29.3 5 3.0 to 22.1 11.9

5 7 5.6 to 25.9 13.6 5 0.3 to 4.1 1.4

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

 The Commission requested U.S. producers of PSF to report any instances of lost sales and/or lost

revenues they experienced due to competition from imports of certain PSF from China during January

2003 through December 2006. Of the seven responding U.S. producers,18 *** reported 17 lost sales

allegations totaling *** and involving *** pounds of certain PSF and 4 lost revenues allegations totaling

*** and involving *** pounds of PSF.19 Staff contacted the listed purchasers, and a summary of the

information obtained is presented in tables V-7 and V-8 and is discussed in more detail below.
 20 *** did not respond to the purchaser questionnaire it was sent for this investigation.

 21 *** reported purchasing *** pounds of PSF imported from China in 2005. *** purchaser questionnaire,

response to question II-1.

V-11

Table V-7

Certain PSF: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations

* * * * * * *

Table V-8

Certain PSF: U.S. producers’ lost revenues allegations

* * * * * * *

***

*** disagreed with all of the lost sales allegations. He reported that his company did not

purchase any of the product in question from China.20

***

*** disagreed with the *** lost sales allegations brought by ***. *** reported that *** percent

of its *** PSF was purchased from *** during the time frame in question, ***.21

***

*** agreed with the *** lost sales allegations brought by ***.

***

*** disagreed with the *** allegations. Concerning the lost sale ***, he reported that market

forces caused the change and that the change was based on the lower price of regenerated fiber from all

sources, not just China. In addition, he reported that lower prices for regenerated fiber are due to the

lower raw material cost. Concerning the lost revenue allegations, *** reported that the reduction in price

was in response to a move away from virgin fiber and that the reduction in price was due to pressure from

mostly Korean regenerated fiber producers.

***

*** agreed to the *** lost sale allegation brought by ***, stating that prices for virgin fiber

“comparable to ***” ranged from *** to *** per pound plus duty and freight. *** disagreed with the

other *** allegations.

Concerning the *** allegation, he stated that the first shipment price came to *** per pound. For

the allegation in *** tried some ***, but it did not work. *** returned to its previously ordered fiber at

*** per pound final cost. Similarly, for the allegation from *** received some *** to try but remained

with the *** per pound product as its primary fiber.

According to ***. He said that the poor quality of *** PSF caused *** pillows and chairs to go

flat and *** customers to complain and/or return the goods. Furthermore, he said that ***, in addition to

its alleged quality problems, also presented pricing problems, with *** trying to increase its prices. ***

added that he had “given up” on *** and had then tried *** as a primary vendor until quality slipped and

price increases were imposed without 30-days notice. Also, *** said that *** prices are delivered but that

the Chinese prices must be increased by cost and freight from ***, delivery, and duty, making the prices

of *** and Chinese PSF closer.

“The main difference is we get a consistent quality product from our China suppliers, and, in my

opinion, for what it’s worth, it is due to updated, modern equipment. I can’t speak for ***, but I can say
 22 *** reported purchasing PSF imported from China in all three years; specifically *** pounds of PSF imported

from China in 2005. *** purchaser questionnaire, response to question II-1.

V-12

*** has very old equipment, and that has to play a part in not only price, but more so in consistent

quality.”

***

*** disagreed with the *** lost sales allegations brought by ***. They had a “history with ***

and evaluated its product but did not get the feel or the yield” that *** required. According to *** did not

produce the “true conjugate virgin fiber” that *** desired. Moreover, *** reported several problems with

*** as well, stating that the quality of its fiber did not meet the feel of plushness and comfort that ***

customers wanted.

***

*** disagreed with all of the lost sales allegations brought by ***. He reported that he did not

buy PSF from China, stating that “a U.S. supplier may have quoted me the above prices, but I did not buy

competing fibers from China.”22
 1

 All firms except *** reported a fiscal year end of December 31. *** reported a fiscal year end of September 30. 

 2

 ***.

VI-1

PART VI: FINANCIAL CONDITION OF U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

Seven U.S. producers, ***, provided usable financial data on their operations on certain PSF.1

These data account for nearly all U.S. production of certain PSF in 2006. No firms reported toll

production or transfers to related firms within the United States; however, *** reported internal

consumption that accounts for *** percent of total net sales (quantity and value) during the reporting

period and is not shown separately in this section of the report.2

 

OPERATIONS ON CERTAIN PSF

Income-and-loss data for U.S. producers on their operations on certain PSF are presented in table

VI-1. Selected financial data, by firm, are presented in table VI-2. The domestic industry reported an

aggregate operating loss in 2004 and 2006, with reported aggregate operating income or loss improving

by approximately $23.9 million from 2004 to 2005, then declining by approximately $14.0 million from

2005 to 2006. The quantity of net sales of certain PSF decreased by 24.0 percent from 2004 to 2006,

while the value of net sales decreased by 4.4 percent during this time frame. While three of the largest

U.S. producers (***) experienced the largest absolute increases in profitability from 2004 to 2005, the

improvement in operating income was reflected in all reporting firms’ financial data, with all seven firms

reporting either increased profits or reduced losses. Similarly, three of the largest U.S. producers (***)

experienced the largest absolute decreases in operating income from 2005 to 2006; however, the decline

in operating income was reflected in most (six of seven) reporting firms’ financial data. 

The cost of goods sold (“COGS”) per pound increased by 22.8 percent from 2004 to 2006. Raw

material costs had the biggest impact on the overall COGS, representing 71.0 to 72.0 percent of total costs

during the reporting period. Raw material costs per pound increased 25.2 percent from 2004 to 2006,

while net sales value per pound similarly increased by 25.8 percent during this time frame. On a firm-byfirm basis, all seven reporting firms’ financial data reflected increased raw material costs per pound from

2004 to 2006, and six of seven reporting firms’ financial data reflected increased COGS from 2004 to

2006. Changes in COGS and net sales value per pound resulted in an overall improvement from an

operating loss to an operating profit from 2004 to 2005, then back to an operating loss in 2006 as perpound costs increased at a greater rate than per-pound revenue.

Table VI-3 contains domestic producers’ quantity and value data on their purchases of MEG,

PTA, and scrap used in the production of certain PSF for 2004-06. While numerically different from the

absolute and per-unit raw material cost data in table VI-1, there are nonetheless similarities. In particular,

both data sets indicate rising unit costs.

*** provided quantity and value data on purchases of MEG and PTA, while *** provided

quantity and value data on purchases of scrap. Four firms (***) stated that raw material costs had been

affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. *** reported that from August to September 2005, PTA became

more expensive and more difficult to obtain. Similarly, *** reported that in the fall of 2005 there was a

tight supply of higher-priced critical raw materials in North America. 
VI-2

Table VI-1

Certain PSF: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2004-06

Item

Fiscal year

2004 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Total net sales 727,996 642,785 553,253

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales 422,770 454,139 404,209

Cost of goods sold 426,288 432,193 397,741

Gross profit or (loss) (3,518) 21,946 6,468

SG&A expenses 11,758 13,342 11,912

Operating income or (loss) (15,276) 8,603 (5,444)

Interest expense 7,326 9,444 11,984

Other income/(expense), net1 5,224 (6,616) (48,567)

Net income or (loss) (17,377) (7,456) (65,995)

Depreciation/amortization 14,951 12,148 11,569

Cash flow (2,425) 4,692 (54,426)

Ratio to net sales (percent)

Cost of goods sold:

 Raw materials 71.0 68.9 70.7

 Direct labor 7.3 6.7 6.7

 Other factory costs 22.5 19.6 21.0

 Total cost of goods sold 100.8 95.2 98.4

Gross profit or (loss) (0.8) 4.8 1.6

SG&A expenses 2.8 2.9 2.9

Operating income or (loss) (3.6) 1.9 (1.3)

Net income or (loss) (4.1) (1.6) (16.3)

Unit value (per pound)

Total net sales $0.58 $0.71 $0.73

 Cost of goods sold:

 Raw materials 0.41 0.49 0.52

 Direct labor 0.04 0.05 0.05

 Other factory costs 0.13 0.14 0.15

 Total cost of goods sold 0.59 0.67 0.72

Gross profit or (loss) (0.005) 0.03 0.01

SG&A expenses 0.02 0.02 0.02

Operating income or (loss) (0.02) 0.01 (0.01)

Net income or (loss) (0.02) (0.01) (0.12)

Number of firms reporting

Operating losses 5 2 3

Data 7 7 7

 1The large decrease in “other income/(expense), net” in 2006 primarily reflects ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
VI-3

Table VI-2

Certain PSF: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, 2004-06

* * * * * * *

Table VI-3

Certain PSF: U.S. producers’ purchases of MEG, PTA, and scrap, 2004-06

Item

Fiscal year

2004 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Purchases of MEG 151,115 136,181 109,342

Purchases of PTA 405,841 367,612 284,063

Purchases of scrap *** *** ***

Value ($1,000)

Purchases of MEG 42,987 44,555 40,621

Purchases of PTA 148,245 156,761 140,178

Purchases of scrap *** *** ***

Unit value (per pound)

Purchases of MEG $0.28 $0.33 $0.37

Purchases of PTA 0.37 0.43 0.49

Purchases of scrap *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 3

 E-mail response from ***.

VI-4

A variance analysis for certain PSF is presented in table VI-4. The information for this variance

analysis is derived from table VI-1. The variance analysis provides an assessment of changes in

profitability as it relates to changes in pricing, cost, and volume. The analysis shows that the favorable

price variance from 2004 to 2006 was largely offset by an unfavorable cost/expense variance during this

time frame.

Table VI-4

Certain PSF: Variance analysis on operations of U.S. producers, 2004-06

Item

Between fiscal years

2004-06 2004-05 2005-06

Value ($1,000)

 Total net sales:

 Price variance 82,918 80,854 13,326

 Volume variance (101,479) (49,485) (63,256)

 Total net sales variance (18,561) 31,369 (49,930)

Cost of sales:

 Cost variance (73,776) (55,802) (25,747)

 Volume variance 102,323 49,896 60,199

 Total cost variance 28,547 (5,905) 34,452

Gross profit variance 9,986 25,464 (15,478)

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance (2,977) (2,961) (428)

 Volume variance 2,822 1,376 1,858

 Total SG&A variance (154) (1,585) 1,430

Operating income variance 9,831 23,879 (14,048)

Summarized as:

 Price variance 82,918 80,854 13,326

 Net cost/expense variance (76,753) (58,763) (26,175)

 Net volume variance 3,667 1,788 (1,198)

Note.-- Unfavorable variances are shown in parentheses; all others are favorable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES

The responding firms’ aggregate data on capital expenditures and research and development

(“R&D”) expenses are shown in table VI-5. Aggregate capital expenditures and R&D expenses

irregularly decreased from 2004 to 2006. *** accounted for *** of reported capital expenditures and ***

of reported R&D expenses during the period examined, and stated that its data primarily reflect ***.3

 
VI-5

Table VI-5

Certain PSF: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of U.S. producers,

2004-06

Item

Fiscal year

2004 2005 2006

Value ($1,000)

Capital expenditures 2,021 1,157 1,466

R&D expenses 1,837 *** 1,787

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

ASSETS AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

The Commission’s questionnaire requested data on assets used in the production, warehousing,

and sale of certain PSF to compute return on investment (“ROI”). Although ROI can be computed in

many different ways, a commonly used method is income divided by total assets. Therefore, ROI is

calculated as operating income divided by total assets used in the production, warehousing, and sale of

certain PSF.

Data on the U.S. certain PSF producers’ total assets and their ROI are presented in table VI-6. 

The total assets utilized in the production, warehousing, and sale of certain PSF decreased from $234.6

million in 2004 to $160.9 million in 2006. The ROI was negative in 2004 and 2006, and ranged from

negative 6.5 percent (in 2004) to positive 4.1 percent (in 2005). The trend in ROI was similar to the trend

in the operating margin during the reporting period.

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any actual or potential negative effects of

imports of certain polyester staple fiber from China on their firms’ growth, investment, ability to raise

capital, development and production efforts (including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced

version of the product), or the scale of capital investments. Their responses are shown in appendix F.
VI-6

Table VI-6

Certain PSF: Value of assets and return on investment of U.S. producers, 2004-06

Item

Fiscal year

2004 2005 2006

Value of assets: Value ($1,000)

Current assets:

 Cash and equivalents 159 791 363

 Accounts receivable, net 46,886 44,928 46,780

 Inventories 53,896 58,447 43,790

 Other 2,146 1,683 1,071

 Total current assets 103,088 105,849 92,003

Property, plant and equipment:

 Book value1 116,144 94,829 58,016

Other non-current assets 15,377 11,746 10,923

 Total assets 234,608 212,424 160,942

Operating income or (loss) (15,276) 8,603 (5,444)

Percent

Return on investment (6.5) 4.1 (3.4)

 1 *** only reported book value data for property, plant, and equipment; therefore, original cost and accumulated

depreciation are not presented in this table. The decline in total assets from 2005 to 2006 primarily reflects ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 1

 Section 771(7)(F)(ii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii)) provides that “The Commission shall consider

{these factors} . . . as a whole in making a determination of whether further dumped or subsidized imports are

imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an order is issued or a suspension

agreement is accepted under this title. The presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to

consider . . . shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the determination. Such a determination

may not be made on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition.”

VII-1

PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS

Section 771(7)(F)(i) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i)) provides that--

In determining whether an industry in the United States is threatened

with material injury by reason of imports (or sales for importation) of

the subject merchandise, the Commission shall consider, among other

relevant economic factors1

--

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be

presented to it by the administering authority as to the nature of the

subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a

subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement), and

whether imports of the subject merchandise are likely to increase,

(II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial

increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating the

likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise

into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export

markets to absorb any additional exports,

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of

imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of

substantially increased imports,

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices

that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on

domestic prices, and are likely to increase demand for further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

(VI) 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,

(VII) in any investigation under this title which involves imports of both

a raw agricultural product (within the meaning of paragraph (4)(E)(iv))

and any product processed from such raw agricultural product, the

likelihood that there will be increased imports, by reason of product 

shifting, if there is an affirmative determination by the Commission 
 2

 Section 771(7)(F)(iii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(iii)) further provides that, in antidumping

investigations, “. . . the Commission shall consider whether dumping in the markets of foreign countries (as

evidenced by dumping findings or antidumping remedies in other WTO member markets against the same class or

kind of merchandise manufactured or exported by the same party as under investigation) suggests a threat of material

injury to the domestic industry.”

 3 Petitioners identified 158 Chinese producers of PSF in the petition. Petition, general exh. 2, pp. 4-8. 

 4 Korean producer Huvis Corporation and Taiwanese producer Far Eastern Textiles, Ltd. both started Chinese

production of PSF in September 2004 and March 2005, respectively. Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 8.

 5 The *** is estimated to have had the largest production capacity in 2004, with *** tons, which represented ***

percent of total Chinese capacity ***. Paraxylene & Derivatives, World Supply & Demand Report 2005/06, PCI

Xylenes & Polyesters Ltd., November 2005, pp. 403-407. 

Counsel for foreign respondent firms Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd., Jiaxing Fuda Chemical Fiber Co.,

Ltd., Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd., and Xiamen Xianglu Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. (hereafter referred to as

“respondents”) contend that the “majority of the companies listed...focus on the production of 1.5D fiber, which is

used in textiles and non subject PSF.” As a result, production capacities are overstated and the “Commission should

not rely on {these} capacity figures reported by Petitioners.” (Chinese respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 12 and

15.) Petitioners concede that while the figures cover “PSF beyond the scope of this case, they are the only available

surrogate for data on certain PSF.” Petitioners also assert that “PCI is a well-known and respected source of data on

the PSF and related industries.” (Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 27.)

VII-2

under section 705(b)(1) or 735(b)(1) with respect to either the raw

agricultural product or the processed agricultural product (but not

both),

(VIII) the actual and potential negative effects on the existing

development and production efforts of the domestic industry, including

efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic

like product, and

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability

that there is likely to be material injury by reason of imports (or sale for

importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually

being imported at the time).2

Subsidies are not relevant to this investigation; information on the volume and pricing of imports

of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts IV and V; and information on the effects of imports of the

subject merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing development and production efforts is presented in Part

VI. Information on inventories of the subject merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the

potential for “product-shifting;” any other threat indicators, if applicable; and any dumping in

third-country markets, follows.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

Petitioners estimate that there are more than 150 manufacturers of PSF in China, most of which

are regionally concentrated in the southeastern coastal provinces of Jiangsu and Zhejiang.3

 These

manufacturers range in size from small and medium enterprises to large national and global

conglomerates4

 with individual production capacities estimated to represent up to *** percent of China’s

national total.5

 While ownership is significantly represented by private parties, state-owned enterprises
 6

 Two state-owned enterprises, PetroChina Company Limited and China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation,

both own subsidiaries that operate in the PSF industry. PetroChina Company Limited’s production capacity

estimates for 2004 represented *** and China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation’s represented *** of China’s total

capacity ***. Paraxylene & Derivatives, World Supply & Demand Report 2005/06, PCI Xylenes & Polyesters Ltd.,

November 2005, pp. 403-407 (presented in the petition, exh. General 2). PetroChina in response to the Commission

staff’s inquiries, stated that it ***. It also reported that ***.

 7 Defined as “synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of polyesters,” in

HTS heading 5503.20. GTIS Global Trade Atlas Database, accessed February 13, 2006.

 8 GTIS Global Trade Atlas Database, accessed February 13, 2007.

 9 Ibid.

 10 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 30. Petitioners supplied industry sources that indicate a recent trend of

overcapacity in the Chinese polyester industry, however these sources also estimate domestic Chinese demand for

PSF to grow, as much as 16 percent in 2005. Petitioners’ postconference brief, exhs. 10, 13, and 19.

VII-3

also maintain a considerable presence in the industry.6 For 2005, China’s estimated PSF production,

import, and export statistics are presented in the following tabulation: 

Item Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Production 10,699,695

Imports 781,098

Exports 462,530

Production plus imports1 11,480,793

Production plus imports minus exports2 11,018,263

1

 The figure for production plus imports is shown to represent increased

resources of PSF. 2 This figure is shown to represent increased resources of PSF, net of exports,

that can be used as an estimate of domestic demand.

Source: http://www.gongkong.com/meiti/meiti/hangye_news.asp as presented in

the Chinese respondents’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 1.

China’s total PSF industry (including nonsubject PSF product) has experienced rapid growth in

it’s exports over the past few years. During 2004-06, China expanded its presence within the global PSF7

market as its share of worldwide PSF exports increased in quantity by 46.8 percentage points to 52

percent.8

 Over the same period, China’s quantity of PSF exports to the United States increased by 224.5

percent to 251.2 million pounds, more than doubling the U.S. share of China’s total PSF exports (from

25.1 percent in 2004 to 40.7 percent in 2006).9

Petitioners argue that “China’s PSF capacity far exceeds home market demand, and capacity will

continue to significantly exceed demand in coming years.”10 Counsel for respondents counters that

although capacity for certain PSF “may have increased in China, China uses 42 percent of the world’s
 11 It is important to note that “...world’s polyester fiber” includes both subject and nonsubject PSF as well as

polyester filament yarn. Chinese respondents’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 1.

 12 The Chinese PSF industry analysis supplied by respondents in their postconference brief indicates that in fact,

“the production capacity of polyester has increased too much, but not enough demand has increased” leading “some

small polyester factories...to be eliminated, and some big factories {to} face loss{es}” (Chinese respondents’

postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 5.) Counsel for respondents cite a variety of public sources that document and

project strong growth in the Chinese housing, furniture, and consumer goods markets which are argued to drive

demand for certain PSF. Chinese respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 17-18 and exhs., 2-5.

 13 Eleven firms in China provided responses to the Commission’s preliminary phase questionnaire. See the notes

to table VII-1 for a description of the differences in responding firms when comparing the preliminary phase to the

final phase of this investigation.

 14 Cixi Jiangnan also provided a response, but was found by Commerce to have de minimis margins, and as such

is treated as a nonsubject source in this report.

 15 Foreign producers’ questionnaire response, section II-9 fn. 2.

 16 *** reported that it established its factory in 2004 and began production of certain PSF in October 2004. 

Foreign respondent firms *** and *** began production of certain PSF in 2005, therefore no capacity and

production data were reported for 2004. ***’s, ***’s, and ***’s foreign producer preliminary phase questionnaire

responses, section II-5.

VII-4

polyester fiber.”11 Furthermore, counsel for respondents argues that “China’s projected production

increases will, in large part, supply the strong domestic demand.”12

CHINESE PRODUCERS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, 

SHIPMENTS, AND INVENTORIES

The Commission sent foreign producer/exporter questionnaires to 60 firms identified in the

petition as producers or exporters of certain PSF in China, for which contact information was publicly

available. Seven firms provided responses to the Commission’s questionnaires.13 14 Two of the four

Chinese firms that are parties to this investigation did not respond to the Commission’s questionnaire in

this final phase of the investigation: Xiamen Xianglu Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd., and Jiaxing Fuda

Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. The names of the foreign firms along with shares of production and exports to

the United States (by quantity) are presented in table VII-1. For 2006, these foreign firms estimated that

they represented a total of 11.1 percent of domestic production in China.15

Capacity, production, inventories, and shipment data submitted by the responding seven firms are

presented in table VII-2.16 During 2004-06, reported capacity to produce certain PSF in China increased

by *** percent, while production increased by *** percent. Capacity utilization increased from ***

percent in 2004, to *** percent in 2006, or by *** percentage points, and is projected to decease to ***

percent in 2007 and then increase to *** percent in 2008.
 17 Chinese respondents’ postconference brief, p. 13.

VII-5

Table VII-1

Certain PSF: Manufacturers/exporters in China, and quantities and shares of reported production

and exports to the United States, 2006

Foreign producer/exporter

Production

Exports to the United

States

Quantity

(1,000 lbs.)

Share

(Percent)

Quantity

(1,000 lbs.)

Share

(Percent)

Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. (“Cixi Sansheng”) *** *** *** ***

Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. (“Cixi Santai”) *** *** *** ***

Cixi Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. (“Cixi Waysun”) *** *** *** ***

Hangzhou Huachuang Co., Ltd. (“Hangzhou Huachuang”) *** *** *** ***

Nanyang Textile Co., Ltd. (“Nanyang Textile”) *** *** *** ***

Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. (“Ningbo Dafa”) *** *** *** ***

Zhejiang Anshun Petttechs Fibre Co., Ltd (“Zhejiang

Anshun” *** *** *** ***

Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. (“Zhejiang

Waysun”) *** *** *** ***

Subtotal *** *** *** ***

Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. (“Cixi Jiangnan”) *** *** *** ***

Total *** 100.0 *** 100.0

Note 1.–***.

Note 2.–***. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table VII-2

Certain PSF: China’s (subject) capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2004-06, and

projections for 2007 and 2008

* * * * * * *

Total exports accounted for *** percent of responding Chinese producers’ total shipments in

2006, compared to *** percent in 2004. These producers’ home-market shipments, which accounted for

the greatest share of responding producers’ total shipments, are projected to increase by *** percent from

2006-07 and *** percent from 2007-08. After home-market shipments, exports to the United States

accounted for the second greatest share of responding producers’ total shipments, but are projected to

decrease by *** percentage points to *** percent of shipments from 2006-07, and decline another ***

percentage point to *** percent of shipments from 2007-08. Counsel for respondents asserted that

although there has been a recent expansion of Chinese PSF imports into the United States, “Chinese

imports have generally replaced imports from Korea and Taiwan and have not materially injured the

domestic industry.”17 Table VII-3 presents data obtained from Global Trade Atlas for exports and

average unit values of PSF from China.
VII-6

Table VII-3

Certain PSF: China’s exports and average unit values, 2004-06

Destination

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

United States 77,399 206,810 251,166

Top export markets:

Turkey 26,330 48,957 60,871

Malaysia 3,474 23,967 38,341

Vietnam 2,483 2,095 22,931

Hong Kong 3,871 13,812 17,729

Taiwan 6,149 15,328 18,610

Russia 8,279 18,143 16,157

World 308,762 449,142 616,684

Unit value (per pound)

United States $0.41 $0.46 $0.46

Top export markets:

Turkey 0.43 0.52 0.51

Malaysia 0.41 0.55 0.54

Vietnam 0.44 0.52 0.54

Hong Kong 0.47 0.51 0.55

Taiwan 0.50 0.50 0.5

Russia 0.48 0.51 0.54

World average 0.45 0.48 0.49

Share of total (percent)

United States 25.1 46 40.7

Top export markets:

Turkey 8.5 10.9 9.9

Malaysia 1.1 5.3 6.2

Vietnam 0.8 0.5 3.7

Hong Kong 1.3 3.1 2.9

Taiwan 2 3.4 3

Russia 2.7 4 2.6

Total top markets 41.5 73.2 69

Note.–Export and import figures are quantities reported at the 6-digit level for HTS subheading 5503.20, which

includes nonsubject products and foreign producers.

Source: Compiled from the Global Trade Atlas database.
 18 Foreign producers’ questionnaire response, section I-4.

 19 Foreign producers’ questionnaire response, section II-1.

 20 ***’s foreign producers’ questionnaire response, section II-1.

 21 ***.

 22 ***’s foreign producers’ questionnaire responses, section II-5. 

 23 ***’s foreign producers’ questionnaire response, section II-5. 

 24 Foreign producers’ questionnaire response, section I-5.

 25 Foreign producers’ questionnaire response, section II-6.

 26 Three foreign producers,*** responded.

 27 Conference transcript, p. 72 (Lane).

VII-7

The Commission asked producers in China whether they or any related firms have the capability

to produce, or plans to produce certain PSF in the United States or other countries; all producers

responded “no.”18 In addition, all but one of the foreign producers stated that they had no plans to add,

expand, curtail, or shut down capacity and/or production19. *** reported that its new PSF plant with a

capacity of 120,000 tons, located in ***, has been built and has had a test run.20 Furthermore, *** foreign

producers stated that their production capacities are restricted by machine capacity21, while one company,

***, also cited insufficient electric power as a constraint22. *** cited lack of access to capital and market

demand as potential limitations.23 In response to the Commission’s question asking foreign producers to

report any imports or plans to import certain polyester staple fiber into the United States, all responded

“No.”24 Additionally, no foreign producers reported any inventories of certain PSF in the United States

since 2004.25

The Commission requested that foreign producers provide details on the composition of their

shipments of certain PSF to the United States. The data collected on exports of subject PSF to the United

States by product type are presented in table VII-4.26 Chinese producers primarily reported exports of

non-conjugated regenerated polyester staple fiber to the United States during the period of investigation. 

Exports of non-conjugated regenerated polyester staple fiber rose by *** percent over the 2004-06 period. 

No foreign producers reported exports of virgin or other PSF during the period of investigation. 

Table VII-4

Certain PSF: China’s (subject) export shipments to the United States, by product, 2004-06

* * * * * * *

The Commission asked foreign producers for the percentage of their certain PSF sales in 2006

that was conducted over the internet, as well as the ratio of certain PSF sales to total sales. Foreign

producers’ responses are presented in table VII-5. Petitioner DAK asserted, in describing foreign

producers’ sales techniques, that the “worldwide web certainly is providing a lot of access at publicly

listed very low pricing and capacity” of foreign producers.27

Table VII-5

Certain PSF: Chinese manufacturers/exporters’ shares of total sales, 2006

* * * * * * *
 28 This decline was largely due to large decreases in ending inventories by three importers, ***.

 29 ***’s, ***’s and ***’s foreign producers’ questionnaire responses, section II-3. ***.

 30 The EU antidumping duty order concerns products classifiable within HTS subheading 5503.20.00. Official

Journal of the European Union, Council Regulation (EC) No. 428/2005 of 10 March 2005, as presented in

petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 14.

 31 Specific duty rates were set for four companies: Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd. (26.3 percent);

Deqing An Shun Pettechs Fibre Industry Co. Ltd. (18.6 percent); Far Eastern Industries (Shanghai) Ltd. (4.9

percent); and Hangzhou An Shun Pettechs Fibre Industry Co. Ltd. (18.6 percent). All other companies are subject to

a 49.7 percent rate of duty. Ibid., p. 32.

 32 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exhs. 8 and 9. 

VII-8

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Table VII-6 presents U.S. importers’ inventories of imports of certain PSF, as reported by firms

responding to the Commission’s importers’ questionnaire. Inventories of subject imports from China

increased by *** percent from 2004 to 2006. Relative to import quantity, inventories of certain PSF from

China were *** percent in 2006, decreasing by *** percentage points since 2004. The ratio of subject

imports from China to U.S. shipments of imports was highest in 2005 at *** percent, an increase of ***

percentage points from 2004; however, it declined *** percentage points from 2005 to 2006.28

Table VII-6

Certain PSF: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, 2004-06

* * * * * * *

PRODUCT SHIFTING AND DUMPING IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

The Commission asked producers in China to report production of other products using the same

production and related workers employed to produce certain PSF. Of the seven Chinese firms that

responded to the Commission’s questionnaire, three firms, ***, reported that they produce other products

using the same production and related workers employed to produce certain PSF.29

The Commission asked these responding foreign producers to report capacity for certain PSF and

all other products as well as production of subject and nonsubject products. The reported data are

presented in table VII-7. From 2004 to 2006, the production of subject products increased by ***

percent, while the production of nonsubject products increased by *** percent over the same period.

Table VII-7

Certain PSF: Chinese (subject) producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization for certain

PSF and alternative products, by products, 2004-06

* * * * * * *

Currently, certain PSF from China is subject to antidumping duty orders in other WTOmember countries. On March 10, 2005, the European Union (“EU”) imposed definitive antidumping

duties on imports of “synthetic staple fibres of polyesters, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for

spinning,” from China.30 Duties from China were established at rates ranging from 4.9 to 49.7 percent.31

Furthermore, petitioners cited Global Trade Atlas data and industry analysis reporting a decline in exports

of PSF from China to the EU and Chinese efforts to consequently increase exports to the United States

and other markets.32
 33 Silicon Metal from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-991 (Second Remand), USITC Publication 3910, March 2007, p.

2; citing Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d at 1375. 

 34 In the silicon metal remand, Chairman Pearson noted “consistent with his views in Lined Paper School

Supplies From China, India, and Indonesia, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-442-443 and 731-TA-1095-1097 (Final), USITC Pub.

3884 (Sept. 2006) at 51, that while he agrees with the Commission that the Federal Circuit’s opinion suggests a

replacement/benefit test, he also finds that the Federal Circuit’s opinion could be read, not as requiring a new test,

but rather as a reminder that the Commission, before it makes an affirmative determination, must satisfy itself that it

has not attributed material injury to factors other than subject imports.” Silicon Metal from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA991 (Second Remand), USITC Publication 3910, March 2007, p. 2, fn. 17. Commissioner Okun joined in those

separate and dissenting views in Lined Paper. 

 35 Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1104 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3878,

August 2006, p. 10 and fn. 50.

VII-9

U.S. IMPORTS AFTER DECEMBER 31, 2006

The Commission asked U.S. importers to report their imports of certain PSF from China that were

imported or arranged for importation after December 31, 2006. Of the 15 firms that provided data in

response to the Commission’s questionnaire, six reported imports after December 31, 2006. The

aggregated quantity of these 15 importers’ reported imports are presented in the following tabulation:

Period Quantity (1,000 pounds)

2007:

January-March ***

April-June ***

July-September ***

October-December (or beyond) ***

Total 10,900

INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT SOURCES

“Bratsk” Considerations

As a result of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) decision in Bratsk

Aluminum Smelter v. United States (“Bratsk”), the Commission is directed to:33 34

undertake an “additional causation inquiry” whenever certain triggering factors are

met: “whenever the antidumping investigation is centered on a commodity product, and

price competitive non-subject imports are a significant factor in the market.” The

additional inquiry required by the Court, which we refer to as the Bratsk

replacement/benefit test, is “whether non-subject imports would have replaced the

subject imports without any beneficial effect on domestic producers.

In its preliminary determination in this investigation, the Commission noted that “(w)e intend to

further explore the role of nonsubject imports in the U.S. market in any final phase of this investigation,”

and invited parties to comment on the applicability of the Bratsk decision to the facts of this

investigation.35 Petitioners disagree with the CAFC’s holding and “its imposition of an extra-statutory
 36 Petitioners’ comments on draft questionnaires, December 21, 2006, p. 4; see also, conference transcript, p. 29

(Cannon). They argue that “(g)iven that a literal reading and application of the Court's statement would result in a

test that is inconsistent with law, we believe that the better interpretation of Bratsk is simply along the lines of the

Gerald Metals holding;” i.e., a “non-attribution test.” Hearing transcript, p. 53 (Cannon) and petitioners’ prehearing

brief, p. 28.

 37 Hearing transcript, p. 54 (Cannon) and petitioners’ prehearing brief, pp. 31-34.

 38 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, p. 13.

 39 Ibid.

 40 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, pp. 35-37; hearing transcript, p. 54 (Cannon); and petitioners’posthearing brief, 

pp. 13 and 37-43. In addition, petitioners argue that as a nonsubject (de minimis) source of certain PSF from China

Cixi Jiangnan ***. Petitioners’ comments on Commerce’s final determination, April 16, 2007, p. 4.

 41 Chinese respondents’ postconference brief, p. 11.

 42 Ibid.

 43 Ashley’s posthearing brief, p. 8.

 44 In its preliminary determination, the Commission invited parties to comment on what additional information

the Commission should collect to address the issues raised by the Court and how that information should be

collected, and to identify which of the various nonsubject sources should be the focus of additional information

gathering by the Commission in any final phase investigation. Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from China, Inv. No.

731-TA-1104 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3878, August 2006, p. 10, fn. 50. In commenting on the draft

questionnaires, no respondent party provided a response to the Commission’s query on data collection.

VII-10

requirement.”36 If the Commission were to consider Bratsk, counsel argue that Bratsk is not applicable in

this investigation because (1) “although PSF produced by different sources is substitutable and

competitive to a large degree, all PSF is not completely interchangeable with all other PSF from all

sources,”37 and arguments of the respondents do not support the conclusion that PSF is a commodity

product;38 and (2) the second triggering factor is also not met as “no other import source, including Korea,

has prices that have been as low as China across the board on different types of PSF.”39 Petitioners argue

that even if the Commission were to find that the Bratsk test is met, nonsubject imports could not replace

imports of certain PSF from China because (1) capacity in China, at extremely low prices, substantially

exceeds that of nonsubject sources, and (2) the principal nonsubject imports in the PSF market, Korea and

Taiwan, are both subject to pre-existing, outstanding antidumping duty orders that provide a check on

these import sales.40 During the preliminary phase of this investigation, Chinese respondents argued

that the CAFC’s preconditions are met in this investigation in that: “(1) PSF is a commodity product; (2)

non-subject imports from Korea and Taiwan are price competitive and have retained a strong presence in

the market despite the antidumping orders; and (3) Korean and Taiwanese imports are subject to

outstanding Antidumping Duty Orders, and, therefore, as a matter of law, are ‘fairly traded.’”41 Chinese

respondents contended that imports of certain PSF from Korea and Taiwan decreased as subject imports

from China increased, indicating that imports from Korea and Taiwan would replace Chinese imports if

an antidumping duty order were imposed.42

During the final phase of this investigation, only respondent Ashley Furniture provided comments

on the relevance of Bratsk, indicating that there was ample evidence at the hearing that imports from

nonsubject sources can take the place of imports from China.43 44

Methodology for Selecting Nonsubject Countries and Firms

During the final phase of this investigation, the Commission sought industry data from seven

nonsubject sources: Germany, India, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and Thailand. Cables were sent

to the U.S. embassies in the seven countries, and foreign producer questionnaires were sent to 25 foreign
VII-11

producers in those countries. The seven sources accounted for more than 90 percent of nonsubject U.S.

imports during 2005 based on official U.S. import statistics. The 25 firms were selected from a universe

of 93 producer/exporters of PSF in the seven nonsubject countries, and represent the vast majority of U.S.

imports from nonsubject sources during 2005. In addition, data from the Commission’s 2006 five-year

reviews of the antidumping duty orders on imports from Korea and Taiwan were utilized to complete this

record (limited to the periods 2004, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005). The

information gathered during this final phase of the investigation regarding certain PSF industries in

nonsubject countries is presented below.

Nonsubject Source Information

The data presented below are derived from Global Trade Atlas, which is based on best available

data at the 6-digit HTS level, and includes nonsubject products. In comparing official U.S. import

statistics of subject products (using 10 digit HTS level) to GTS export data, the ratios of subject U.S.

imports to exports to the United States (including nonsubject PSF) for 2006 are presented in the

tabulation below.

Country Ratio (percent)

China 94.6

India1 72.3

Indonesia1 130.5

Korea 59.4

Mexico 33.8

Taiwan 38.8

Thailand 73.0

1

 Based on 2005 GTS export data (the latest full-year data available).

Note: Germany does not report export statistics to GTS.

Source: Compiled from the Global Trade Atlas database and official

Commerce statistics.
 45 Germany does not report export statistics to Global Trade Atlas, but reported imports of 358.7 million pounds

in 2004 and 372.0 million pounds in 2005.

 46 This company was ***.

 47 These companies were ***

VII-12

China (nonsubject)

Chinese producer, Cixi Jiangnan was found by Commerce to have de minimis dumping margins. 

Exports of certain PSF by Cixi Jiangnan accounted for *** percent of total imports of certain PSF from

China in 2006. Cixi Jiangnan reported exporting *** PSF to the United States. It also reported that it

***. This accounted for *** percent of its total production in 2006. Capacity, production, inventories,

and shipment data submitted by Cixi Jiangnan are presented in table VII-8. 

Table VII-8

Certain PSF: China’s (nonsubject) capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2004-06, and

projections for 2007 and 2008

* * * * * * *

Germany 

In 2005, U.S. imports of certain PSF from Germany were 4.1 million pounds, representing 0.7

percent of all certain PSF imports into the United States.45 One company represented over 95 percent of

these imports into the United States in 2005.46 The Commission sent a telegram soliciting information

concerning the PSF industry in Germany from the U.S. embassy in Berlin. No response was received.

India

In 2005 Indian companies exported 29.2 million pounds of PSF to the United States, representing

5.9 percent of all imports into the United States in 2005. Two companies represented almost 93 percent

of these imports into the United States in 2005.47 The Commission sent a telegram soliciting information

concerning the PSF industry in India from the U.S. embassy in Delhi. No response was received.

Table VII-9 presents data on Indian exports and imports. Table VII-10 presents data obtained

from Global Trade Atlas for exports and average unit values of PSF from India. 

Table VII-9

Certain PSF: India’s exports and imports, 2004-05, January-September 2005, and JanuarySeptember 2006

Item

Calendar year January-September

2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Exports 48,947 138,357 109,653 129,161

Imports 22,041 22,185 17,570 19,096

Net exports 26,906 116,170 92,083 110,065

Note.–Export and import figures are quantities reported at the 6-digit level for HTS subheading 5503.20.

Source: Compiled from the Global Trade Atlas database.
VII-13

Table VII-10

Certain PSF: India’s exports and average unit values, 2004-05, January-September 2005, and

January-September 2006

Destination

Calendar year January-September

2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

United States 14,180 29,187 15,914 19,541

Top export markets:

Indonesia 5,281 27,351 23,530 18,177

Syria 8,195 11,288 8,796 23,098

China 1,423 10,675 10,112 5,585

Egypt 2,051 10,367 8,359 11,368

Bangladesh 826 8,959 8,394 9,096

Philippines 308 5,533 5,533 3,228

Morocco 1,119 4,476 4,057 6,383

Total 48,947 138,357 109,653 129,161

Unit value (per pound)

United States $0.48 $0.52 $0.52 $0.53

Top export markets:

Indonesia 0.57 0.53 0.53 0.54

Syria 0.57 0.54 0.54 0.52

China 0.34 0.48 0.49 0.47

Egypt 0.41 0.51 0.52 0.52

Bangladesh 0.60 0.53 0.53 0.55

Philippines 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.58

Morocco 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.54

Total 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.53

Share of total (percent)

United States 29.0 21.1 14.5 15.1

Top export markets:

Indonesia 10.8 19.8 21.5 14.1

Syria 16.7 8.2 8.0 17.9

China 2.9 7.7 9.2 4.3

Egypt 4.2 7.5 7.6 8.8

Bangladesh 1.7 6.5 7.7 7.0

Philippines 0.6 4.0 5.0 2.5

Morocco 2.3 3.2 3.7 4.9

Total 68.2 77.9 77.2 74.7

Note.–Export figures are quantities reported at the 6-digit level for HTS subheading 5503.20, which includes

nonsubject products.

Source: Compiled from the Global Trade Atlas database.
 48 These companies were: ***

 49 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Embassy, Jakarta, unclassified, February 2007.

VII-14

Indonesia

In 2005, Indonesian companies exported 19.0 million pounds of PSF to the United States,

representing 7 percent of all imports into the United States in 2005. Five companies represented over 85

percent of these imports into the United States in 2005.48 According to the Indonesia Ministry of Trade

(“MOT”), two of these companies, ***, have apparently ceased operations or are no longer producing

PSF. The Indonesian Synthetic Fiber Production Association (“ISFPA”) reported that Indonesia has a

total PSF production capacity of 1.102 billion pounds.49

Table VII-11 presents data on Indonesian exports and imports. Table VII-12 presents data

obtained from Global Trade Atlas for exports and average unit values of PSF from Indonesia. 

Table VII-11

Certain PSF: Indonesia’s exports and imports, 2004-05

Item 2004 2005

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Exports 90,212 130,896

Imports 156,883 91,833

Net exports (66,671) 39,063

Note.–Export and import figures are quantities reported at the 6-digit level for HTS subheading 5503.20. Data for

2006 are not available.

Source: Compiled from the Global Trade Atlas database.
VII-15

Table VII-12

Certain PSF: Indonesia’s exports and average unit values, 2004-05

Destination

Calendar year

2004 2005

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

United States 8,718 19,025

Top export markets:

Pakistan 427 17,344

Turkey 12,818 12,287

Iran 7,407 11,108

Thailand 9,093 10,986

India 3,012 7,167

Egypt 7,493 6,489

Japan 3,282 5,738

World total 90,213 130,898

Unit value (per pound)

United States $0.46 $0.51

Top export markets:

Pakistan 0.46 0.51

Turkey 0.55 0.57

Iran 0.48 0.54

Thailand 0.47 0.54

India 0.49 0.51

Egypt 0.44 0.51

Japan 0.54 0.55

World average 0.49 0.52

Share of total (percent)

United States 9.7 14.5

Top export markets:

Pakistan 0.5 13.3

Turkey 14.2 9.4

Iran 8.2 8.5

Thailand 10.1 8.4

India 3.3 5.5

Egypt 8.3 5.0

Japan 3.6 4.4

Total 57.9 68.9

Note.–Export figures are quantities reported at the 6-digit level for HTS subheading 5503.20, which includes

nonsubject products.

Source: Compiled from the Global Trade Atlas database.
 50 Petitioners assert that, to some extent, there has been a shift in production operations and exports by certain

producers in Korea to China. They point to the reported construction of a plant in China by SichuanHuvis Poylester

Co, a joint venture 95% owned by Huvis. Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 8.

 51 These companies were: ***.

 52 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Embassy, Seoul, unclassified, February 2007.

 53 Ibid.

VII-16

Korea

In 2005 Korean companies exported 184.8 million pounds to the United States, representing 52.1

percent of all imports into the United States in 2005.50 Nine companies represented over 93 percent of

these imports into the United States in 2005.51 The Korea Chemical Fibers Association (“KCFA”)

reported that total exports from Korea was 1.327 billion pounds in 2004 and 1.115 billion pounds for

January through November 2006. KCFA also reported the industry in Korea operated in 2006 at

approximately 90 percent of capacity. Furthermore, KCFA stated that it did not expect exports to the

United States and its other major markets, production, capacity, or capacity utilization to change in 2007

or 2008.52 

In the Commission’s five-year reviews of the antidumping duty orders on imports of certain PSF

from Korea and Taiwan, two Korean producers, Huvis Corp. and Seahan Industries, Inc (“Seahan”),

provided complete questionnaire responses. The data on these two companies’ PSF capacity, production,

inventories, and shipments are presented in table VII-13. These firms were also reported by KCFA

during this final phase of the investigation as the two primary producers of PSF in Korea.53

Table VII-13

Certain PSF: Korea’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2004, January-September

2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Table VII-14 presents data obtained from Global Trade Atlas for exports and average unit values

of PSF from Korea. Table VII-15 presents data on Korean exports and imports.
VII-17

Table VII-14

Certain PSF: Korea’s exports and average unit values, 2004-06

Destination

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

United States 300,986 294,100 286,005

Top export markets:

China 301,973 230,238 214,989

Germany 75,302 55,426 66,535

Russia 49,133 65,615 61,788

Iran 47,498 32,680 57,731

United Kingdom 51,868 46,380 51,854

Spain 41,084 33,933 36,686

Belgium 38,336 33,717 33,768

Canada 34,041 31,792 33,024

World 1,329,782 1,217,100 1,230,854

Unit value (per pound)

United States $0.47 $0.54 $0.55

Top export markets:

China 0.48 0.53 0.56

Germany 0.53 0.56 0.57

Russia 0.52 0.57 0.58

Iran 0.50 0.55 0.61

United Kingdom 0.50 0.54 0.52

Spain 0.55 0.59 0.57

Belgium 0.49 0.54 0.55

Canada 0.46 0.52 0.52

World average 0.49 0.55 0.57

Share of total (percent)

United States 22.6 24.2 23.2

Top export markets:

China 22.7 18.9 17.5

Germany 5.7 4.6 5.4

Russia 3.7 5.4 5.0

Iran 3.6 2.7 4.7

United Kingdom 3.9 3.8 4.2

Spain 3.1 2.8 3.0

Belgium 2.9 2.8 2.7

Canada 2.6 2.6 2.7

Total 70.7 67.7 68.4

Note.–Export and import figures are quantities reported at the 6-digit level for HTS subheading 5503.20, which includes

nonsubject products.

Source: Compiled from the Global Trade Atlas database.
 54 “Alpek to close polyester fiber facility in Monterry”, found at

http://www.alfa.com.mx/ingles/sala/com-2005.htm#, retrieved on February 7, 2007.

VII-18

Table VII-15

Certain PSF: Korea’s exports and imports, 2004-06

Item 2004 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Exports 1,329,782 1,217,100 1,230,854

Imports 5,123 6,112 7,421

Net exports 1,324,659 1,210,988 1,223,433

Note.–Export and import figures are quantities reported at the 6-digit level for HTS subheading 5503.20.

Source: Compiled from the Global Trade Atlas database.

Mexico

In 2005, U.S. imports of certain PSF from Mexico were 4.4 million pounds to the United States,

representing 0.7 percent of all imports into the United States. One company, Polykron S.A. de C.V.,

represented almost *** percent of these imports into the United States in 2005. Polykron was a subsidiary

of Alpek S.A. de C.V. which is also the parent company of DAK. In July 2005 Polykron closed its

manufacturing facilities in Mexico, which had an annual capacity of 55,000 tons.54 The Commission sent

a telegram soliciting data concerning the PSF industry in Mexico from the U.S. embassy in Mexico City. 

No response was received. Table VII-16 presents data on Mexican exports and imports. Table VII-17

presents data obtained from Global Trade Atlas for exports and average unit values of PSF from Mexico.

Table VII-16

Certain PSF: Mexico’s exports and imports, 2004-06

Item 2004 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Exports 73,997 51,614 3,359

Imports 158,174 182,943 228,676

Net exports (84,176) (131,329) (225,317)

Note.–Export and import figures are quantities reported at the 6-digit level for HTS subheading 5503.20.

Source: Compiled from the Global Trade Atlas database.
VII-19

Table VII-17

Certain PSF: Mexico’s exports and average unit values, 2004-06

Destination

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

United States 46,428 27,585 716

Top export markets:

El Salvador 3,941 2,873 2,328

Colombia 145 3,759 240

Italy 98 3,491 48

Uruguay 332 268 24

Germany 156 513 3

Canada 6,426 1,029 0.02

World 73,997 51,614 3,359

Unit value (per pound)

United States $0.63 $0.75 $0.63

Top export markets:

El Salvador 0.60 0.67 0.75

Colombia 0.68 0.68 0.74

Italy 0.44 0.60 0.55

Uruguay 0.58 0.65 0.74

Germany 0.45 0.62 0.75

Canada 0.54 0.70 2.44

World average 0.60 0.70 0.72

Share of total (percent)

United States 62.7 53.4 21.3

Top export markets:

El Salvador 5.3 5.6 69.3

Colombia 0.2 7.3 7.1

Italy 0.1 6.8 1.4

Uruguay 0.4 0.5 0.7

Germany 0.2 1.0 0.1

Canada 8.7 2.0 0.001

Total 77.7 76.6 100.0

Note.–Export figures are quantities reported at the 6-digit level for HTS subheading 5503.20, which includes nonsubject

products.

Source: Compiled from the Global Trade Atlas database.
 55 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Embassy, Taipei, unclassified, February 2007.

 56 Petitioners assert that, to some extent, there has been a shift in production operations and exports by certain

producers in Taiwan to China. They point to the opening of a plant in China by Far Eastern Textile Shanghai, a

subsidiary of Far Eastern Textile. The plant is reported to be used to supply feed stock to Far Eastern Textile

Shanghai’s PSF plant in Shanghai, with a reported PSF production capacity of 50,000 tons per year. Petitioners’

postconference brief, exh. 8.

 57 These companies were: ***.

 58 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Embassy, Taipei, unclassified, February 2007.

VII-20

Taiwan

According to the American Institute in Taiwan in Taipei, Taiwan’s production of PSF peaked in

1997 at 2.205 billion pounds, and is currently estimated at about 1.4 billion pounds in 2006. Capacity fell

from 2 billion pounds in 2004 to 1.89 billion pounds in 2006, with capacity utilization falling from 96

percent to 75 percent over the same period. The Taiwan Man-made Fiber Industries Association

(“TMMFA”) predicts that production, capacity and supply volume will continue to decline in 2007 and

2008. Taiwan PSF manufacturers, in response to increasing labor and land costs and a shrinking

domestic spinning industry, have invested in production operations in other Asian countries. Domestic

market share of shipments dropped from 37 percent in 2001 to 27 percent in 2005.55 In 2005, Taiwan

companies exported 54.1 million pounds to the United States, representing 15.3 percent of all imports into

the United States in 2005.56 Five companies represented over 96 percent of these imports into the United

States in 2005.57 A sixth manufacturer, ***, closed its factories in Taiwan in late 2006. TMMFA

reported that another manufacturer will also close its domestic PSF production line in 2007.58

In the Commission’s five-year reviews of the antidumping duty orders on imports of certain PSF

from Korea and Taiwan, two Taiwan producers, Nan Ya Plastics Corp. (“Nan Ya Taiwan”) and Shinkong

Synthetic Fiber Corp. (“Shinkong”), provided complete questionnaire responses. The data on these two

companies’ PSF capacity, production, inventories, and shipments are presented in table VII-18. 

Table VII-18

Certain PSF: Taiwan’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2004, January-September

2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Table VII-19 presents data obtained from Global Trade Atlas for exports and average unit values

of PSF from Taiwan. Table VII-20 presents data on Taiwan exports and imports.
VII-21

Table VII-19

Certain PSF: Taiwan’s exports and average unit values, 2004-06

Destination

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

United States 95,516 93,393 96,642

Top export markets:

Vietnam 214,699 216,732 157,861

China 245,553 175,322 113,075

Italy 29,035 51,044 68,852

United Kingdom 37,130 52,883 61,428

Hong Kong 273,077 121,921 56,857

Germany 32,686 36,761 51,484

Israel 24,689 31,946 36,557

World 1,424,355 1,227,840 1,075,074

Unit value (per pound)

United States $0.52 $0.59 $0.62

Top export markets:

Vietnam 0.51 0.53 0.55

China 0.49 0.54 0.57

Hong Kong 0.52 0.57 0.58

United Kingdom 0.54 0.58 0.58

Italy 0.48 0.53 0.54

Germany 0.56 0.59 0.60

Indonesia 0.52 0.58 0.59

World average 0.50 0.56 0.58

Share of total (percent)

United States 6.7 7.6 9.0

Top export markets:

Vietnam 15.1 17.7 14.7

China 17.2 14.3 10.5

Hong Kong 2.0 4.2 6.4

United Kingdom 2.6 4.3 5.7

Italy 19.2 9.9 5.3

Germany 2.3 3.0 4.8

Indonesia 1.7 2.6 3.4

Total 66.9 63.5 59.8

Note.–Export figures are quantities reported at the 6-digit level for HTS subheading 5503.20, which includes nonsubject

products.

Source: Compiled from the Global Trade Atlas database.
 59 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Embassy, Bangkok, unclassified, February 2007.

 60 The companies were: ***.

 61 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Embassy, Bangkok, unclassified, February 2007.

VII-22

Table VII-20

Certain PSF: Taiwan’s exports and imports, 2004-06

Item 2004 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Exports 1,424,355 1,227,840 1,075,074

Imports 15,530 14,407 7,750

Net exports 1,408,825 1,213,432 1,067,323

Note.–Export and import figures are quantities reported at the 6-digit level for HTS subheading 5503.20.

Source: Compiled from the Global Trade Atlas database.

Thailand

Production capacity of PSF in Thailand fell from 1,086 million pounds in 2004 to 1,035 million

pounds in 2005 and to 839 million pounds in the interim period of January to September, 2006. 

Production of certain PSF followed a similar trend, decreasing from 1,003 million pounds to 978 million

pounds between 2004 and 2005, and to 648 million pounds in the interim period of January to September,

2006.59 In 2005 Thai companies exported 48.0 million pounds of PSF to the United States, representing

12.3 percent of all imports into the United States in 2005. Two companies represented over 98 percent of

these imports into the United States in 2005.60 According to the Thai Synthetic Fiber Manufacturers

Association (“TSMA”), one of the companies, ***, ceased production in September 2006 due to financial

difficulties caused by the low world price due to low-cost Chinese producers. TSMA reported that were

four other major producers of PSF in Thailand, but that none of these firms exported to the United

States.61

*** is the *** producer of PSF in Thailand, with a PSF production capacity of *** million

pounds and an average capacity utilization of *** percent. In 2006, the company produced *** million

pounds, of which *** million pounds were exported, with *** percent of that quantity exported to the

United States. *** reported that it had no plans to expand or contract production in the next two years. It

noted that increased competition from China has reduced prices and profit margins. Furthermore, ***

stated that while it did not expect duties on Chinese exports of PSF to the United States to increase the

company’s exports, it did expect any duties to result in higher prices offered to buyers.

Table VII-21 presents data on Thai exports and imports. Table VII-22 presents data obtained

from Global Trade Atlas for exports and average unit values of PSF from Thailand.
VII-23

Table VII-21

Certain PSF: Thailand’s exports and imports, 2004-06

Item 2004 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Exports 571,365 516,279 390,659

Imports 65,602 74,879 80,099

Net exports 505,764 441,400 310,560

Note.–Export and import figures are quantities reported at the 6-digit level for HTS subheading 5503.20.

Source: Compiled from the Global Trade Atlas database.
VII-24

Table VII-22

Certain PSF: Thailand’s exports and average unit values, 2004-06

Destination

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

United States 53,344 47,992 45,447

Top export markets:

Vietnam 45,527 65,234 69,847

China 108,061 96,906 45,427

Pakistan 1,683 46,050 43,609

Syria 28,914 48,041 32,429

Indonesia 79,704 60,763 31,666

Bangladesh 25,658 21,037 19,742

Iran 22,755 13,715 17,165

World 571,365 516,279 390,659

Unit value (per pound)

United States $0.54 $0.58 $0.59

Top export markets:

Vietnam 0.49 0.51 0.55

China 0.50 0.52 0.58

Pakistan 0.53 0.50 0.52

Syria 0.51 0.50 0.52

Indonesia 0.48 0.51 0.53

Bangladesh 0.49 0.51 0.55

Iran 0.49 0.49 0.60

World average 0.49 0.52 0.55

Share of total (percent)

United States 9.3 9.3 11.6

Top export markets:

Vietnam 8.0 12.6 17.9

China 18.9 18.8 11.6

Pakistan 0.3 8.9 11.2

Syria 5.1 9.3 8.3

Indonesia 14.0 11.8 8.1

Bangladesh 4.5 4.1 5.1

Iran 4.0 2.7 4.4

Total 64.0 77.4 78.2

Note.–Export figures are quantities reported at the 6-digit level for HTS subheading 5503.20, which includes nonsubject products.

Source: Compiled from the Global Trade Atlas database.
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices 77373 

2006 (‘‘Decision Memo’’), which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. The 

issues discussed in the Decision Memo 

include the likelihood of continuation 

or recurrence of dumping and the 

magnitude of the margin likely to 

prevail if the antidumping duty order 

were revoked. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in this sunset review and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

room B–099 of the main Department 

building. In addition, a complete 

version of the Decision Memo can be 

accessed directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision Memo 

are identical in content. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on OCTG from 

Mexico is likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of dumping at the 

following weighted–average margins: 

Manufacturers/Producers/Exporters Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percent) 

TAMSA ......................... 21.70 

Hylsa ............................. 0.62 

All Others ...................... 21.70 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Interested parties may 

submit case briefs no later than 50 days 

after the date of publication of this 

notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which 

must be limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs, may be filed no later than 

five days after the case briefs, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). 

Any hearing, if requested, will be held 

two days after rebuttal briefs are due, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). 

The Department will issue a notice of 

final results of this sunset review, which 

will include the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any such briefs, no later 

than April 27, 2007. 

This five–year (‘‘sunset’’) review and 

notice are in accordance with sections 

751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: December 18, 2006. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–22076 Filed 12–22–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–570–905) 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Partial 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Polyester 

Staple Fiber from the People’s 

Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 26, 2006. 

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine 

that certain polyester staple fiber 

(‘‘PSF’’) from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) is being, or is likely to 

be, sold in the United States at less than 

fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in 

section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’). The estimated 

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in 

the ‘‘Preliminary Determination’’

section of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Holton or Paul Walker, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1324 or 482–0413, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Initiation 

On June 23, 2006, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a 

petition on imports of PSF from the PRC 

filed in proper form by Dak Americas 

LLC., Nan Ya Plastics Corporation 

America, and Wellman, Inc. 

(‘‘Petitioners’’) on behalf of the domestic 

industry and workers producing PSF. 

This investigation was initiated on July 

13, 2006. See Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty Investigation: Certain Polyester 

Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic 

of China, 71 FR 41201 (July 20, 2006) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). Additionally, in 

the Initiation Notice, the Department 

notified parties of the application 

process by which exporters and 

producers may obtain separate–rate 

status in non–market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

investigations. The new process requires 

exporters and producers to submit a 

separate–rate status application. See 

Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate–Rates 

Practice and Application of 

Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations involving Non–Market 

Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005), 

(‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’) available at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov. However, the 

standard for eligibility for a separate rate 

(which is whether a firm can 

demonstrate an absence of both de jure 

and de facto governmental control over 

its export activities) has not changed. 

On August 7, 2006, the United States 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

issued its affirmative preliminary 

determination that there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States is materially injured or 

threatened with material injury by 

reason of imports from the PRC of PSF. 

The ITC’s determination was published 

in the Federal Register on August 11, 

2006. See Investigation No. 731–TA–

1104 (Preliminary), Certain Polyester 

Staple Fiber from China, 71 FR 46241 

(August 11, 2006). 

Scope Comments 

The Department also set aside a 20- 

day period from the publication of the 

initiation for all interested parties to 

raise issues regarding product coverage. 

The Department did not receive any 

comments from interested parties 

regarding product coverage during the 

20-day period and subsequently, did not 

change the scope in the Initiation 

Notice. 

Quantity and Value 

On July 19, 2006, the Department 

requested quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’) 

information from a total of 106 

companies that Petitioners identified as 

potential producers or exporters of PSF 

from the PRC. Also, on July 19, 2006, 

the Department sent a letter requesting 

Q&V information to the China Bureau of 

Fair Trade for Imports & Exports 

(‘‘BOFT’’) of the Ministry of Commerce 

(‘‘MOFCOM’’) requesting that BOFT 

transmit the letter to all companies who 

manufacture and export subject 

merchandise to the United States, or 

produce the subject merchandise for the 

companies who were engaged in 

exporting the subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POI. For a 

complete list of all parties from which 

the Department requested Q&V 

information, see Memorandum to James 

C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, from Michael Holton, Sr. 

International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: 

Selection of Respondents for the 

Antidumping Investigation of Polyester 

Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic 

of China, dated September 18, 2006, 

(‘‘Respondent Selection 

Memorandum’’). Between August 8, 

2006, and August 21, 2006, the 

Department received Q&V responses 

from 19 interested parties. The 

Department did not receive any type of 

communication from BOFT regarding its 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
77374 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices 

request for Q&V information. See 

Respondent Selection Memorandum at 

1. 

On September 18, 2006, the 

Department selected Cixi Jiangnan 

Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. (‘‘Cixi 

Jiangnan’’), Far Eastern Industries 

(Shanghai) Ltd. (‘‘Far Eastern’’) and 

Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Ningbo Dafa’’) as mandatory 

respondents in this investigation. See 

Respondent Selection Memorandum at 

4. 

Surrogate Country 

On September 28, 2006, the 

Department determined that India, 

Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, 

and Egypt are countries comparable to 

the PRC in terms of economic 

development. See Memorandum from 

Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of 

Policy, to Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9: 

Antidumping Investigation of Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC): Request for a 

List of Surrogate Countries, dated 

September 28, 2006. 

On October 5, 2006, the Department 

requested comments on the surrogate 

country selection from the interested 

parties in these reviews. Petitioners 

submitted surrogate country comments 

on October 27, 2006. Far Eastern 

submitted surrogate country comments 

on November 9, 2006. On November 20, 

2006, Petitioners submitted rebuttal 

surrogate country comments. No other 

interested parties commented on the 

selection of a surrogate country. For a 

detailed discussion of the selection of 

the surrogate country, see ‘‘Surrogate 

Country’’ section below, and the 

Memorandum to the File through James 

C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, from Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s 

Republic of China: Selection of a 

Surrogate Country, dated December 15, 

2006 (‘‘Surrogate Country 

Memorandum’’). 

Separate Rates Applications 

Between August 16, 2006, and August 

21, 2006, we received separate–rate 

applications from seventeen companies, 

including the mandatory respondents: 

Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo 

Dafa. On September 13, 2006, and 

September 14, 2006, we received 

applications from Hangzhou Taifu 

Textile Fiber Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hangzhou 

Taifu’’) and Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs 

Fibre Co., Ltd., respectively. 

Questionnaires 

On September 6, 2006, the 

Department requested comments from 

all interested parties on proposed 

product characteristics and model 

match criteria to be used in the 

designation of control numbers 

(‘‘CONNUMs’’) to be assigned to the 

subject merchandise. The Department 

received comments from Cixi Jiangnan, 

Far Eastern, Springs Global US, Inc. 

(‘‘Springs Global’’) and Petitioners. The 

Department also received rebuttal 

comments from Ningbo Dafa. On 

September 20, 2006, the Department 

issued its sections A, C, D, and E, 

questionnaire with product 

characteristics and model match criteria 

used in the designation of CONNUMs 

and assigned to the merchandise under 

consideration. On November 27, 2006, 

the Department requested supplemental 

information from Hangzhou Taifu. The 

Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires to Cixi Jiangnan, Far 

Eastern, and Ningbo Dafa between 

October and November 2006, and 

received responses between October and 

December 2006. On December 7 and 8, 

2006, Petitioners submitted Comments 

on Cixi Jiangnan’s, Far Eastern’s and 

Ningbo Dafa’s December 4, 2006, 

supplemental questionnaires responses. 

On December 11, 2006, Cixi Jiangnan, 

Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa responded 

to Petitioners’ comments. The 

Department was unable to fully consider 

Petitioners’ December 7 and 8, 2006, 

comments and respondents’ December 

11, 2006, comments because they were 

filed less than 10 days before the 

preliminary determination. 

Surrogate Value Comments 

On November 9, 2006, Petitioners, Far 

Eastern, Cixi Jiangnan and Ningbo Dafa 

submitted comments on surrogate 

information with which to value the 

factors of production in this proceeding. 

On November 20, 2006, Petitioners filed 

rebuttal comments on surrogate 

information with which to value the 

factors of production in this proceeding. 

On December 4, 2006, Ningbo Dafa 

submitted additional surrogate value 

comments. 

Critical Circumstances 

On September 29, 2006, Petitioners 

alleged that there is a reasonable basis 

to believe or suspect critical 

circumstances exist with respect to the 

antidumping investigation of PSF from 

the PRC. On October 5, 2006, the 

Department issued questionnaires 

requesting data for monthly exports to 

the United States from January 2003 

through September 2006 from Cixi 

Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa, 

and received responses on October. For 

a detailed discussion, please see the 

‘‘Critical Circumstances’’ section below. 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination 

On November 16, 2006, the 

Department informed Petitioners, Cixi 

Jiangnan, Far Eastern, and Ningbo Dafa 

of our intent to postpone the 

preliminary determination pursuant to 

section 733(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act by 

fifteen days to December 15, 2006. On 

December 5, 2006, the Department 

published a postponement of the 

preliminary antidumping duty 

determination on PSF from the PRC. See 

Notice of Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Certain Polyester Staple 

Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, 71 FR 70508 (December 5, 2006). 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

October 1, 2006, through March 31, 

2006. This period corresponds to the 

two most recent fiscal quarters prior to 

the month of the filing of the petition 

(June 23, 2006). See 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1). 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise subject to this 

proceeding is 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 subject 

merchandise 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. 

The following products are excluded 

from the scope: (1) PSF of less than 3.3 

decitex (less than 3 denier) currently 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) at subheading 5503.20.0025 

and known to the industry as PSF for 

spinning and generally used in woven 

and knit applications to produce textile 

and apparel products; (2) PSF 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 (3) 

low–melt PSF defined as a bi–

component fiber with an outer, non–

polyester sheath that melts at a 

significantly lower temperature than its 

inner polyester core (classified at 

HTSUS 5503.20.0015). 

Certain PSF is classifiable under the 

HTSUS subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices 77375 

5503.20.0065. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

under the orders is dispositive. 

Non–Market-Economy Country 

For purposes of initiation, Petitioners 

submitted LTFV analyses for the PRC as 

a non–market economy. See Initiation 

Notice, 71 FR at 41203. The Department 

considers the PRC to be a NME country. 

In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) 

of the Act, any determination that a 

foreign country is an NME country shall 

remain in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority. See Tapered 

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, (‘‘TRBs’’) 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results 2001–2002 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 

(February 14, 2003), unchanged in Final 

Results of 2001–2002 Administrative 

Review: TRBs from the People’s 

Republic of China, 68 FR 70488 

(December 18, 2003). No party has 

challenged the designation of the PRC as 

an NME country in this investigation. 

Therefore, we have treated the PRC as 

an NME country for purposes of this 

preliminary determination. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME, section 773(c)(1) 

of the Act directs it to base normal 

value, in most circumstances, on the 

NME producer’s factors of production 

valued in a surrogate market–economy 

country or countries considered to be 

appropriate by the Department. In 

accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the 

Act, in valuing the factors of 

production, the Department shall 

utilize, to the extent possible, the prices 

or costs of factors of production in one 

or more market–economy countries that 

are at a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the NME country 

and are significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. The sources 

of the surrogate values we have used in 

this investigation are discussed under 

the normal value section below. 

As detailed in the Surrogate Country 

Memorandum, the Department has 

preliminarily selected India as the 

surrogate country on the basis that: (1) 

it is a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise; (2) it is at a 

similar level of economic development 

pursuant to 733(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) 

we have reliable data from India that we 

can use to value the factors of 

production. Thus, we have calculated 

normal value using Indian prices when 

available and appropriate to value Cixi 

Jiangnan’s, Far Eastern’s and Ningbo 

Dafa’s factors of production. See 

Memorandum to the File from Paul 

Walker, through Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, and James C. Doyle, Director, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s 

Republic of China: Surrogate Values for 

the Preliminary Determination, dated 

December 15, 2006 (‘‘Factor Value 

Memorandum’’). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final 

determination in an antidumping 

investigation, interested parties may 

submit publicly available information to 

value the factors of production within 

40 days after the date of publication of 

the preliminary determination. 

Affiliations 

Based on the evidence on the record 

in this investigation and based on the 

evidence presented in Far Eastern’s 

questionnaire responses, we 

preliminarily find that Far Eastern is 

affiliated with Far Eastern Polychem 

Industries (‘‘FEPI’’), WuHan Far Eastern 

Industrial Trading Ltd. (‘‘WHFE’’), 

Alberta & Orient Co., Ltd (Canada) 

(‘‘A&O’’), Yuang Ding Investment Co. 

Ltd. (‘‘YDIC’’), Everest Investment 

(Holding) Limited (‘‘EIHL’’), Everest 

Textile Co. Ltd. (‘‘Everest Textile’’), Far 

Eastern Industrial (Suzhou) Ltd. 

(‘‘FEIZ’’), Far Eastern Industrial (Wuxi) 

Ltd. (‘‘FEIW’’) and Far Eastern Textiles 

(Taiwan) Ltd.’s (‘‘FETL’’), in addition to 

FETL’s other related parties, pursuant to 

sections 771(33)(E), (F), and (G) of the 

Act. Additionally, based on the 

evidence on the record in this 

investigation and presented in Ningbo 

Dafa’s questionnaire responses, we 

preliminarily find that Ningbo Dafa is 

affiliated with Cixi Dafa Chemical Fiber 

Co., Ltd., Ferry Fly Foreign Trade Co., 

Ltd. and Worthal Limited Partnership 

pursuant to sections 771(33)(E), (F), and 

(G) of the Act. We preliminarily find 

that it is not necessary to collapse Far 

Eastern or Ningbo Dafa with its affiliates 

because there is no record evidence 

demonstrating that there is significant 

potential for manipulation of price or 

production with its affiliates. We note 

that the Department normally considers 

three criteria for collapsing: (i) the level 

of common ownership; (ii) the extent to 

which managerial employees or board 

members of one firm sit on the board of 

directors of an affiliated firm; and (iii) 

whether operations are intertwined, 

such as through the sharing of sales 

information, involvement in production 

and pricing decisions, the sharing of 

facilities or employees, or significant 

transactions between the affiliated 

producers. See 19 C.F.R. Sec. 

351.401(f)(2). 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department has a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. It is the Department’s policy 

to assign all exporters of merchandise 

subject to investigation in an NME 

country this single rate unless an 

exporter can demonstrate that it is 

sufficiently independent so as to be 

entitled to a separate rate. Cixi Jiangnan, 

Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa, and the 

Separate–Rate Applicants have 

provided company–specific information 

to demonstrate that they operate 

independently of de jure and de facto 

government control, and therefore 

satisfy the standards for the assignment 

of a separate rate. 

We have considered whether each 

PRC company that submitted a complete 

application is eligible for a separate rate. 

The Department’s separate–rate test is 

not concerned, in general, with 

macroeconomic/border–type controls, 

e.g., export licenses, quotas, and 

minimum export prices, particularly if 

these controls are imposed to prevent 

dumping. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic 

of China, 63 FR 72255, 72256 

(December 31, 1998). The test focuses, 

rather, on controls over the investment, 

pricing, and output decision–making 

process at the individual firm level. See 

Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel 

Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 

61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 

61279 (November 17, 1997). 

To establish whether a firm is 

sufficiently independent from 

government control of its export 

activities to be entitled to a separate 

rate, the Department analyzes each 

entity exporting the subject 

merchandise under a test arising from 

the Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), 

as further developed in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). In 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
77376 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices 

1For a list of companies to which the Department 

sent its request for Q&V information, see 

Respondent Selection Memorandum at 1. 

accordance with the separate–rates 

criteria, the Department assigns separate 

rates in NME cases only if respondents 

can demonstrate the absence of both de 

jure and de facto governmental control 

over export activities. 

1. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) an absence of 

restrictive stipulations associated with 

an individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

The evidence provided by Cixi 

Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa and 

the Separate–Rate Applicants supports a 

preliminary finding of de jure absence 

of governmental control based on the 

following: 1) an absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with the 

individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; 2) the applicable 

legislative enactments decentralizing 

control of the companies; and 3) any 

other formal measures by the 

government decentralizing control of 

companies. See Memorandum to James 

C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, through Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9: Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple 

Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China: Separate Rates Memorandum, 

dated December 15, 2006 (‘‘Separate 

Rates Memorandum’’). 

2. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

governmental control of its export 

functions: (1) whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a governmental agency; (2) whether 

the respondent has authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The 

Department has determined that an 

analysis of de facto control is critical in 

determining whether respondents are, 

in fact, subject to a degree of 

governmental control which would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

separate rates. 

We determine that, for Cixi Jiangnan, 

Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa and the 

Separate–Rate Applicants, the evidence 

on the record supports a preliminary 

finding of de facto absence of 

governmental control based on record 

statements and supporting 

documentation showing the following: 

1) each exporter sets its own export 

prices independent of the government 

and without the approval of a 

government authority; 2) each exporter 

retains the proceeds from its sales and 

makes independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; 3) each exporter has the 

authority to negotiate and sign contracts 

and other agreements; and 4) each 

exporter has autonomy from the 

government regarding the selection of 

management. 

Therefore, the evidence placed on the 

record of this investigation by Cixi 

Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa and 

the Separate–Rate Applicants 

demonstrate an absence of de jure and 

de facto government control with 

respect to each of the exporter’s exports 

of the merchandise under investigation, 

in accordance with the criteria 

identified in Sparklers and Silicon 

Carbide. As a result, for the purposes of 

this preliminary determination, we have 

granted separate company–specific rates 

to Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo 

Dafa. Additionally, we have granted the 

Separate–Rate Applicants a weighted–

average margin for the purposes of this 

preliminary determination. See 

Separate Rates Memorandum. 

The PRC–Wide Entity 

The Department has data that 

indicates there were more exporters of 

PSF from the PRC than those indicated 

in the response to our request for Q&V 

information during the POI. See 

Respondent Selection Memorandum. 

We issued our request for Q&V 

information to 106 potential Chinese 

exporters of the subject merchandise, in 

addition to BOFT and MOFCOM.1 We 

received only 19 Q&V responses and 3 

Q&V responses that were improperly 

filed. See Respondent Selection 

Memorandum at 1–2. We did not 

receive Q&V responses from most of the 

companies to which we sent our request 

for Q&V information. See Id. 

Information on the record of this 

investigation indicates that there are 

numerous producers/exporters of PSF in 

the PRC. Based upon our knowledge of 

the volume of imports of subject 

merchandise from the PRC, the 

companies which responded to the Q&V 

questionnaire, the Separate–Rate 

Applicants, Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, 

and Ningbo Dafa do not account for all 

imports into the United States. 

Although all exporters were given an 

opportunity to provide Q&V 

information, not all exporters provided 

a response to the Department’s Q&V 

letter. Further, the Government of the 

PRC did not respond to the 

Department’s questionnaire. Therefore, 

the Department determines 

preliminarily that there were PRC 

exporters of the subject merchandise 

during the POI from PRC producers/ 

exporters that did not respond to the 

Department’s request for information. 

We have treated these PRC producers/ 

exporters as part of the PRC–wide entity 

because they did not qualify for a 

separate rate. 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that, if an interested party (A) withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the Department, (B) fails to provide such 

information in a timely manner or in the 

form or manner requested, subject to 

subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, 

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding 

under the antidumping statute, or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified, the 

Department shall, subject to subsection 

782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. 

Information on the record of this 

investigation indicates that the PRC–

wide entity was non–responsive. 

Certain companies did not respond to 

our request for Q&V information and 

did not respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire. As a result, pursuant to 

section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find 

that the use of facts available is 

appropriate to determine the PRC–wide 

rate. See Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Affirmative Preliminary Determination 

of Critical Circumstances and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 

4986 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Affirmative 

Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 

2003). 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, in selecting from among the facts 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices 77377 

2Secondary information is described in the SAA 

as ‘‘information derived from the petition that gave 

rise to the investigation or review, the final 

determination concerning subject merchandise, or 

any previous review under section 751 concerning 

the subject merchandise.’’ See SAA at 870. 

otherwise available, the Department 

may employ an adverse inference if an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information. See Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cold–Rolled Flat–

Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel Products 

from the Russian Federation, 65 FR 

5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000); see also 

‘‘Statement of Administrative Action,’’

accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 

103–316, 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’). We find 

that, because the PRC–wide entity did 

not respond to our request for 

information, it has failed to cooperate to 

the best of its ability. Therefore, the 

Department preliminarily finds that, in 

selecting from among the facts available, 

an adverse inference is appropriate. 

Further, section 776(b) of the Act 

authorizes the Department to use as 

adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) 

information derived from the petition, 

the final determination from the LTFV 

investigation, a previous administrative 

review, or any other information placed 

on the record. In selecting a rate for 

adverse facts available, the Department 

selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse 

‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 

available rule to induce respondents to 

provide the Department with complete 

and accurate information in a timely 

manner.’’ See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static 

Random Access Memory 

Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 

8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). It is the 

Department’s practice to select, as AFA, 

the higher of the (a) highest margin 

alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest 

calculated rate of any respondent in the 

investigation. See Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Certain Cold–Rolled Carbon Quality 

Steel Products from the People’s 

Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 

21, 2000) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, at ‘‘Facts 

Available.’’ In the instant investigation, 

as AFA, we have assigned to the PRC–

wide entity a margin based on 

information in the petition, because the 

margin derived from the petition is 

higher than the calculated margins for 

the selected respondents. In this case, 

we have applied the petition rate of 

44.30 percent. 

Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, 

when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation as facts available, it must, 

to the extent practicable, corroborate 

that information from independent 

sources reasonably at its disposal.2 The 

SAA also states that the independent 

sources may include published price 

lists, official import statistics and 

customs data, and information obtained 

from interested parties during the 

particular investigation. See SAA at 870. 

The SAA also clarifies that 

‘‘corroborate’’ means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value. See SAA at 870. As 

noted in Tapered Roller Bearings and 

Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 

from Japan, and Tapered Roller 

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, 

from Japan; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 

57392 (November 6, 1996), unchanged 

in Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and 

Termination in Part: Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 

and Unfinished, From Japan, and 

Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 

Less in Outside Diameter, and 

Components Thereof, From Japan, 62 

FR 11825 (March 13, 2005), to 

corroborate secondary information, the 

Department will, to the extent 

practicable, examine the reliability and 

relevance of the information used. 

Petitioners’ methodology for 

calculating the export price and normal 

value in the petition is discussed in the 

initiation notice. See Initiation Notice at 

41203. To corroborate the AFA margin 

selected, we compared the U.S. price 

and normal values from the petition to 

the U.S. price and normal values for the 

respondents. See Memorandum to the 

File through Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: 

Corroboration of the PRC–Wide Facts 

Available Rate for the Preliminary 

Determination in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of PSF and parts thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China, 

dated December 15, 2006, 

(‘‘Corroboration Memorandum’’). 

Accordingly, we find that the rate of 

44.30 percent is corroborated within the 

meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. 

Consequently, we are applying 44.30 

percent as the single antidumping rate 

to the PRC–wide entity. The PRC–wide 

rate applies to all entries of the 

merchandise under investigation except 

for entries from Cixi Jiangnan, Far 

Eastern, Ningbo Dafa and the SeparateRate Applicants. 

Margin for the Separate Rate 

Applicants 

The Department received timely and 

complete separate rates applications 

from the Separate Rates Applicants, 

who are all exporters of PSF from the 

PRC, which were not selected as 

mandatory respondents in this 

investigation. Through the evidence in 

their applications, these companies 

have demonstrated their eligibility for a 

separate rate, as discussed above in the 

‘‘Separate Rates’’ section and in the 

Separate Rates Memorandum. 

Consistent with the Department’s 

practice, as the separate rate, we have 

established a weighted–average margin 

for the Separate Rates Applicants based 

on the rates we calculated for Ningbo 

Dafa, Cixi Jiangnan and Far Eastern, 

excluding any rates that are zero, de 

minimis, or based entirely on AFA. 

Companies receiving this rate are 

identified by name in the ‘‘Suspension 

of Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

Date of Sale 

Section 351.401(i) of the Department’s 

regulations states that, ‘‘in identifying 

the date of sale of the subject 

merchandise or foreign like product, the 

Secretary normally will use the date of 

invoice, as recorded in the exporter or 

producer’s records kept in the normal 

course of business.’’ However, the 

Secretary may use a date other than the 

date of invoice if the Secretary is 

satisfied that a different date better 

reflects the date on which the exporter 

or producer establishes the material 

terms of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i); See 

also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. 

United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 

1090–1093 (CIT 2001) (‘‘Allied Tube’’). 

The date of sale is generally the date on 

which the parties agree upon all 

substantive terms of the sale. This 

normally includes the price, quantity, 

delivery terms and payment terms. In 

order to simplify the determination of 

date of sale for both the respondent and 

the Department and in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.401(i), the date of sale will 

normally be the date of the invoice, as 

recorded in the exporter’s or producer’s 

records kept in the ordinary course of 

business, unless satisfactory evidence is 

presented that the exporter or producer 

establishes the material terms of sale on 

some other date. In other words, the 

date of the invoice is the presumptive 

date of sale, although this presumption 

may be overcome. For instance, in Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol from 

Taiwan, 61 FR 14067 (March 29, 1996), 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
77378 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices 

the Department used the date of the 

purchase order as the date of sale 

because the terms of sale were 

established at that point. 

After examining the questionnaire 

responses and the sales documentation 

that Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and 

Ningbo Dafa placed on the record, we 

preliminarily determine that invoice 

date is the most appropriate date of sale 

for Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and 

Ningbo Dafa. In its supplemental section 

A response, dated November 16, 2006, 

Far Eastern explained that it had 

incorrectly stated that it did not 

encounter any changes to the material 

terms of sale from its purchase orders. 

Instead, its original statement should 

have read that material terms of the sale 

from its commercial invoice had not 

changed during the POI. Additionally, 

Far Eastern provided several specific 

examples where it did encounter 

changes to the material terms of sale 

from its purchase orders. These 

examples included a cancellation of a 

sale and order changes that affected the 

price, quantity, product types and 

shipping destination. 

Petitioners, however, claim that the 

purchase order date is the most 

appropriate date of sale because Far 

Eastern stated that it did not encounter 

any changes with respect to the material 

terms of the sale from its purchase 

orders in its original section A 

questionnaire response, dated October 

12, 2006. Petitioners have requested that 

the Department use the purchase order 

date because Far Eastern stated that the 

terms of sale did not change after the 

purchase order was issued. 

In Allied Tube, the Court of 

International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) found that a 

‘‘party seeking to establish a date of sale 

other than invoice date bears the burden 

of producing sufficient evidence to 

’satisfy’ the Department that a different 

date better reflects the date on which 

the exporter or producer establishes the 

material terms of sale.’’’ Allied Tube 132 

F. Supp. 2d at 1092. 

Therefore, for this preliminary 

determination, the Department finds 

that based on the information on the 

record, Petitioners have failed to rebut 

the presumption that the invoice date is 

not the appropriate date of sale for Cixi 

Jiangnan, Far Eastern or Ningbo Dafa. 

Each respondent has provided various 

examples of material changes to their 

purchase orders during the POI. See 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin From 

the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 

79054 (December 27, 2005). 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of PSF to 

the United States by Cixi Jiangnan, Far 

Eastern and Ningbo Dafa were made at 

less than fair value, we compared the 

export price (‘‘EP’’) to normal value 

(‘‘NV’’), as described in the ‘‘U.S. Price,’’

and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this 

notice. We compared NV to weighted–

average EPs in accordance with section 

777A(d)(1) of the Act. 

U.S. Price 

Export Price 

For Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and 

Ningbo Dafa, we based U.S. price on EP 

in accordance with section 772(a) of the 

Act, because the first sale to an 

unaffiliated purchaser was made prior 

to importation, and CEP was not 

otherwise warranted by the facts on the 

record. We calculated EP based on the 

packed price from the exporter to the 

first unaffiliated customer in the United 

States. Where applicable, we deducted 

foreign movement expenses, foreign 

brokerage and handling expenses, and 

international freight expenses from the 

starting price (gross unit price), in 

accordance with section 772(c) of the 

Act. 

Where foreign movement or 

international ocean freight was provided 

by PRC service providers or paid for in 

Renminbi (‘‘RMB’’), we valued these 

services using surrogate values (see 

‘‘Factors of Production’’ section below 

for further discussion). 

For a complete discussion of specific 

respondent calculations of the U.S. 

price, see Memorandum to the File from 

Michael Holton, Senior Case Analyst: 

Program Analysis for the Preliminary 

Determination of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple 

Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China: Cixi Jiangnan, dated December 

15, 2006 (‘‘Cixi Jiangnan Analysis 

Memorandum’’); Memorandum to the 

File from Michael Holton, Senior Case 

Analyst: Program Analysis for the 

Preliminary Determination of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the 

People’s Republic of China: Far Eastern, 

dated December 15, 2006 (‘‘Far Eastern 

Analysis Memorandum’’); and 

Memorandum to The File from Paul 

Walker, Senior Case Analyst, 

Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple 

Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China: Analysis Memo for Ningbo Dafa 

Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd., dated 

December 15, 2006 (‘‘Ningbo Dafa 

Analysis Memorandum’’). 

Normal Value 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department shall determine the 

NV using a factors–of-production 

methodology if the merchandise is 

exported from an NME and the 

information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home–market 

prices, third–country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department bases NV on 

the FOP because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of non–market economies renders price 

comparisons and the calculation of 

production costs invalid under the 

Department’s normal methodologies. 

During the POI, Far Eastern did not 

have production of all types of 

merchandise for which it had POI sales. 

Consequently, Far Eastern reported in 

the factors of production database the 

most closely resembling CONNUM 

produced during the POI for the 

merchandise that was sold, but not 

produced during the POI. At the 

Department’s request, Far Eastern also 

submitted factors of production 

information covering the six-month 

period prior to the POI for the 

merchandise that was sold, but not 

produced during the POI, which 

included factors of production most 

closely resembling the CONNUM 

produced during the POI. Therefore, the 

Department has determined to use the 

additional six-month information 

provided by Far Eastern. See Far 

Eastern Analysis Memorandum. 

In addition, Ningbo Dafa produced 

subject merchandise in more than one 

facility. Ningbo Dafa has stated that all 

subject merchandise sales to the United 

States and their respective CONNUMs 

may be tied to a single production 

facility. The Petitioners have argued that 

the Department should calculate normal 

value using factors of production from 

all of Ningbo Dafa’s production 

facilities. However, absent record 

information to the contrary, for this 

preliminary determination, the 

Department has only included the 

factors of production from this single 

facility in our calculation of normal 

value. See Ningbo Dafa Analysis 

Memorandum for a more complete 

explanation. The Department will 

continue to examine this issue for the 

final determination. 

Critical Circumstances 

On September 29, 2006, Petitioners 

alleged that there is a reasonable basis 

to believe or suspect critical 

circumstances exist with respect to the 

antidumping investigation of PSF from 

the PRC. On October 19, 2006, Cixi 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices 77379 

Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa 

submitted information on their exports 

from January 2003 through September 

2006 as requested by the Department. In 

accordance with 19 C.F.R. 

§ 351.206(c)(2)(i), because Petitioners 

submitted critical circumstances 

allegations more than 20 days before the 

scheduled date of the preliminary 

determination, the Department must 

issue preliminary critical circumstances 

determinations not later than the date of 

the preliminary determination. 

Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department will preliminarily 

determine that critical circumstances 

exist if there is a reasonable basis to 

believe or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a 

history of dumping and material injury 

by reason of dumped imports in the 

United States or elsewhere of the subject 

merchandise; or (ii) the person by 

whom, or for whose account, the 

merchandise was imported knew or 

should have known that the exporter 

was selling the subject merchandise at 

less than its fair value and that there 

was likely to be material injury by 

reason of such sales; and (B) there have 

been massive imports of the subject 

merchandise over a relatively short 

period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations provides that, 

in determining whether imports of the 

subject merchandise have been 

‘‘massive,’’ the Department normally 

will examine: (i) the volume and value 

of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and 

(iii) the share of domestic consumption 

accounted for by the imports. In 

addition, section 351.206(h)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations provides that 

an increase in imports of 15 percent 

during the ‘‘relatively short period’’ of 

time may be considered ‘‘massive.’’

Section 351.206(i) of the Department’s 

regulations defines ‘‘relatively short 

period’’ as normally being the period 

beginning on the date the proceeding 

begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) 

and ending at least three months later. 

The regulations also provide, however, 

that if the Department finds that 

importers, exporters, or producers had 

reason to believe, at some time prior to 

the beginning of the proceeding, that a 

proceeding was likely, the Department 

may consider a period of not less than 

three months from that earlier time. 

In accordance with Section 

733(e)(1)(A)(I) of the Act and as 

discussed in the Critical Circumstances 

Memorandum, the Department 

preliminarily finds that there is a 

history of dumping and material injury 

by reason of dumped imports in the 

United States and elsewhere of the 

subject merchandise based on the 

existence of foreign antidumping duty 

orders of PSF, and the ITC’s preliminary 

determination of material injury. See 

Memorandum to Stephen Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD 

Operations from James C. Doyle, 

Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Negative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances (‘‘Critical Circumstance 

Memorandum’’). 

For the reasons set forth in the Critical 

Circumstances Memorandum, we find 

that there have been massive imports of 

the subject merchandise over a 

relatively short period for Far Eastern, 

but not for Ningbo Dafa, Cixi Jiangnan, 

the Separate Rates Applicants and the 

PRC–wide entity. See Critical 

Circumstance Memorandum at 

Attachment 5–7. We find that some 

importers, exporters, or producers knew 

or should have known an antidumping 

case was pending on PSF imports from 

the PRC in March of 2006 because there 

is record evidence that many of the 

Chinese producers begin planning the 

antidumping investigation. Therefore, 

we relied on a period of six months as 

the period, which is the maximum 

duration for the information we have 

available at this time, for comparison in 

preliminarily determining whether 

imports of the subject merchandise have 

been massive. 

Therefore, given the analysis 

summarized above, and described in 

more detail in the Critical 

Circumstances Memorandum, we 

preliminarily determine that critical 

circumstances exist for imports of PSF 

from exist for Far Eastern, but do not 

exist for imports of PSF from Cixi 

Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa, the 

Separate–Rates Applicants and the 

PRC–wide entity. 

We will make a final determination 

concerning critical circumstances for all 

producers/ exporters of subject 

merchandise from the PRC when we 

make our final dumping determination 

in this investigation, which is currently 

75 days after the preliminary 

determination. 

Factor Valuation Methodology 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP 

data reported by respondents for the 

POI. To calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per–unit factor–consumption 

rates by publicly available surrogate 

values (except as discussed below). In 

selecting the surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Indian import surrogate values a 

surrogate freight cost using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory or the 

distance from the nearest seaport to the 

factory where appropriate. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v. 

United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407–

1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed 

description of all surrogate values used 

for respondents can be found in the 

Factor Value Memorandum and 

company–specific analysis 

memorandum. Additionally, for 

detailed descriptions of all actual values 

used for market–economy inputs, see 

the company–specific analysis 

memoranda dated December 15, 2006. 

See Cixi Jiangnan Analysis 

Memorandum; Far Eastern Analysis 

Memorandum; and Ningbo Dafa 

Analysis Memorandum. 

For this preliminary determination, 

the Department will use Far Eastern’s 

reported market economy price of 

ethylene glycol from its unaffiliated 

supplier. However, the Department will 

continue to review whether Far Eastern 

is affiliated with its ethylene glycol 

supplier. If the Department finds that 

Far Eastern and its ethylene glycol 

supplier are affiliated, the Department 

will consider whether these purchases 

were made at arms–length in the final 

determination. See Far Eastern Analysis 

Memorandum. 

For this preliminary determination, in 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, we used data from the Indian 

Import Statistics in order to calculate 

surrogate values for the mandatory 

respondents’ material inputs. In 

selecting the best available information 

for valuing FOP in accordance with 

section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the 

Department’s practice is to select, to the 

extent practicable, surrogate values 

which are non–export average values, 

most contemporaneous with the POI, 

product–specific, and tax–exclusive. 

See e.g., Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Negative Preliminary 

Determination of Critical Circumstances 

and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged 

in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

71005 (December 8, 2004). The record 

shows that data in the Indian Import 

Statistics represents import data that is 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
77380 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices 

contemporaneous with the POI, 

product–specific, and tax–exclusive. 

Where we could not obtain publicly 

available information contemporaneous 

to the POI with which to value factors, 

we adjusted the surrogate values using, 

where appropriate, the Indian 

Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) as 

published in the International Financial 

Statistics of the International Monetary 

Fund. 

Furthermore, with regard to the 

Indian import–based surrogate values, 

we have disregarded import prices that 

we have reason to believe or suspect 

may be subsidized. We have reason to 

believe or suspect that prices of inputs 

from Indonesia, South Korea, and 

Thailand may have been subsidized. We 

have found in other proceedings that 

these countries maintain broadly 

available, non–industry-specific export 

subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable 

to infer that all exports to all markets 

from these countries may be subsidized. 

See Amended Final Determination of 

Sales at Less than Fair Value: 

Automotive Replacement Glass 

Windshields from the People’s Republic 

of China, 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 2002); 

see also Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Negative Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) 

(‘‘CTVs from the PRC’’). We are also 

directed by the legislative history not to 

conduct a formal investigation to ensure 

that such prices are not subsidized. See 

H.R. Rep. 100–576 at 590 (1988). Rather, 

Congress directed the Department to 

base its decision on information that is 

available to it at the time it makes its 

determination. Therefore, we have not 

used prices from these countries either 

in calculating the Indian import–based 

surrogate values or in calculating 

market–economy input values. In 

instances where a market–economy 

input was obtained solely from 

suppliers located in these countries, we 

used Indian import–based surrogate 

values to value the input. See Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Automotive 

Replacement Glass Windshields From 

The People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 

6482 (February 12, 2002), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. 

For Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, and 

Ningbo Dafa, certain inputs into the 

production of the merchandise under 

investigation were purchased from 

market economy suppliers and paid for 

in market economy currencies. For these 

inputs all purchases were made from a 

market economy supplier and paid in a 

market economy currency, and the 

Department has therefore used the 

weighted–average POI price 

experienced by each respondent for 

these inputs. Therefore, we used the 

individual market economy prices 

experienced by Cixi Jiangnan, Far 

Eastern, and Ningbo Dafa when the 

inputs were obtained from a market 

economy, paid for in a market economy 

currency, and was a significant portion 

of the total purchases of that input. 

The Department used the Indian 

Import Statistics to value the raw 

material and packing material inputs 

that Far Eastern, Cixi Jiangnan, and 

Ningbo Dafa used to produce the subject 

merchandise during the POI, except 

where listed below. Absent adequate 

information on the record to value PSF 

waste (fiber, ‘‘popcorn’’ and lump), for 

this preliminary determination, we are 

using an average of three Indian HTS 

numbers, 5503.20.00, 3915.90.42 and 

3915.90.90, which represent values for 

raw PET bottles, finished PSF and 

plastic scrap, respectively. We note that 

the Department ‘‘need not prove that its 

methodology was the only way or even 

the best way to calculate surrogate 

values for factors of production, as long 

as it was a reasonable way.’’ See 

Coalition for the Pres. of Am. Brake 

Drum and Rotor Aftermakret Mfs. v. 

u.S.s., 23 CIT 88, 118, 44 F.Supp.2d 229, 

258 (1999); Shakeproof Assembly 

Components v. U.S., Slip–Op 06–129 

(August 25, 2006). We find that, given 

the information on the record, that 

averaging HTS numbers 5503.20.00, 

3915.90.42 and 3915.90.90 is the most 

reasonable way to value PSF waste. For 

a detailed description of PSF waste and 

all other surrogate values used for 

respondents, see Factor Value 

Memorandum. 

To value electricity and diesel fuel, 

the Department used rates from Key 

World Energy Statistics 2003, published 

by the International Energy Agency. 

Because these data were not 

contemporaneous to the POI, we 

adjusted for inflation using WPI. See 

Factor Value Memorandum. 

For natural gas, we applied a 

surrogate value obtained from the Gas 

Authority of India Ltd. website, a 

supplier of natural gas in India, covering 

the period January through June 2002. 

In addition, based on the February 1, 

2005, article from Chemical Weekly, we 

note that the Petroleum Ministry had 

been considering raising the price but 

no action was taken. Therefore, 

consistent with the Department’s recent 

determination in Polyvinyl Alcohol 

from the People’s Republic of China, we 

took the average of the base and ceiling 

prices, added the transportation charge, 

and inflated the calculated value using 

the appropriate WPI inflator. See 

Surrogate Value Memo and Polyvinyl 

Alcohol From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

27991 (May 15, 2006), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

The Department valued steam 

following the methodology used in the 

investigation of Certain Tissue Paper 

Products and Certain Crepe Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of 

China, but updated the natural gas 

price. See Factor Value Memorandum 

and Notice of Preliminary 

Determinations of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary 

Determination of Critical Circumstances 

and Postponement of Final 

Determination for Certain Tissue Paper 

Products, 69 FR 56407 (September 21, 

2004), unchanged in the final 

determination, Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Tissue Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of 

China, 70 FR 7475 (February 14, 2005). 

For direct, indirect, and packing 

labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC 

regression–based wage rate as reported 

on Import Administration’s home page, 

Import Library, Expected Wages of 

Selected NME Countries, revised in 

November 2005, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

wages/index.html. The source of these 

wage–rate data on the Import 

Administration’s web site is the 

Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO 

(Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in 

Manufacturing. Because this regression–

based wage rate does not separate the 

labor rates into different skill levels or 

types of labor, we have applied the same 

wage rate to all skill levels and types of 

labor reported by the respondent. See 

Factor Value Memorandum. 

Because water is essential to the 

production process of the subject 

merchandise, the Department considers 

water to be a direct material input, and 

not as overhead, and valued water with 

a surrogate value according to our 

practice. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the 

People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 

(October 28, 2003) and, accompanying 

Issue and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 11. Although some suppliers 

have reported that they obtain water 

from a well, we find that whether the 

producer pays for water is irrelevant in 

determining whether it should be 

considered a direct material input. 

Further, there is no evidence on the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices 77381 

record that the Indian producer of 

polyester staple fiber from which we are 

obtaining an overhead financial ratio 

accounts for water as an overhead 

expense. The Department valued water 

using data from the Maharashtra 

Industrial Development Corporation 

(www.midcindia.org) since it includes a 

wide range of industrial water tariffs. 

This source provides 386 industrial 

water rates within the Maharashtra 

province from June 2003: 193 for the 

‘‘inside industrial areas’’ usage category 

and 193 for the ‘‘outside industrial 

areas’’ usage category. Because the value 

was not contemporaneous with the POI, 

we adjusted the rate for inflation. See 

Factor Value Memorandum. 

We used Indian transport information 

in order to value the freight–in cost of 

the raw materials. The Department 

determined the best available 

information for valuing truck freight to 

be from www.infreight.com. This source 

provides daily rates from six major 

points of origin to five destinations in 

India during the POI. The Department 

obtained a price quote on the first day 

of each month of the POI from each 

point of origin to each destination and 

averaged the data accordingly. See 

Factor Value Memorandum. Consistent 

with the calculation of inland truck 

freight, the Department used the same 

freight distances used in the calculation 

of inland truck freight, as reported by 

www.infreight.com to derive a value in 

Rupees per kilogram per kilometer. See 

Factor Value Memorandum. 

The Department used two sources to 

calculate a surrogate value for domestic 

brokerage expenses. The Department 

averaged December 2003–November 

2004 data contained in Essar Steel’s 

February 28, 2005, public version 

response submitted in the AD 

administrative review of Hot–Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products from India 

with October 2002–September 2003 data 

contained in Pidilite Industries’ March 

9, 2004, public version response 

submitted in the AD investigation of 

Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India 

(see Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From 

India, 69 FR 67306 (November 17, 

2004)). The brokerage expense data 

reported by Essar Steel and Pidilite 

Industries in their public versions is 

ranged data. The Department first 

derived an average per–unit amount 

from each source. Then the Department 

adjusted each average rate for inflation. 

Finally, the Department averaged the 

two per–unit amounts to derive an 

overall average rate for the POI. See 

Factor Value Memorandum. 

To value marine insurance, the 

Department obtained a price quote from 

http://www.rjgconsultants.com/ 

insurance.html, a market–economy 

provider of marine insurance. See 

Factor Value Memo Memorandum. To 

value factory overhead, selling, general, 

and administrative expenses, and profit, 

we used the audited financial 

statements from Indo Rama’s 2005/2006 

Annual Report and Reliance Industries 

Ltd.’s 2005/2006 Annual Report. See 

Factor Value Memorandum. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act, based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the 

Act, we intend to verify the information 

upon which we will rely in making our 

final determination. 

Combination Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

Initiation Notice, 70 FR 35625, 35629. 

This change in practice is described in 

Policy Bulletin 05.1, available at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/. The Policy Bulletin 05.1, 

states: 

‘‘[w]hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to 

exporters, all separate rates that the 

Department will now assign in its 

NME investigations will be specific 

to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of 

investigation. Note, however, that 

one rate is calculated for the 

exporter and all of the producers 

which supplied subject 

merchandise to it during the period 

of investigation. This practice 

applies both to mandatory 

respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate 

rate as well as the pool of non–

investigated firms receiving the 

weighted–average of the 

individually calculated rates. This 

practice is referred to as the 

application of ‘‘combination rates’’

because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one 

or more producers. The cash–

deposit rate assigned to an exporter 

will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in 

question and produced by a firm 

that supplied the exporter during 

the period of investigation.’’ See 

Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6. 

Preliminary Determination 

The weighted–average dumping 

margins are as follows: 

PSF FROM THE PRC - WEIGHTED–AVERAGE DUMPING MARGINS

Exporter & Producer Weighted–Average Deposit Rate 

Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Co., Ltd. ........................................................................................................ 15.30% 

Far Eastern Industries (Shanghai) Ltd. ............................................................................................... 10.45% 

Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................ 4.39% 

Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................. 9.25% 

Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................... 9.25% 

Cixi Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................ 9.25% 

Hangzhou Best Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................ 9.25% 

Hangzhou Hanbang Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd., ................................................................................... 9.25% 

Hangzhou Huachuang Co., Ltd. .......................................................................................................... 9.25% 

Hangzhou Sanxin Paper Co., Ltd. ....................................................................................................... 9.25% 

Hangzhou Taifu Textile Fiber Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................... 9.25% 

Jiaxang Fuda Chemical Fibre Factory ................................................................................................ 9.25% 

Nantong Luolai Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd. ............................................................................................. 9.25% 

Nanyang Textile Co., Ltd. .................................................................................................................... 9.25% 

Suzhou PolyFiber Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................. 9.25% 

Xiamen Xianglu Fiber Chemical Co. ................................................................................................... 9.25% 

Zhaoqing Tifo New Fiber Co., Ltd. ...................................................................................................... 9.25% 

Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co., Ltd. .......................................................................................... 9.25% 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
77382 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices 

PSF FROM THE PRC - WEIGHTED–AVERAGE DUMPING MARGINS—Continued 

Exporter & Producer Weighted–Average Deposit Rate 

Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.. ....................................................................................... 9.25% 

PRC–Wide Rate .................................................................................................................................. 44.30% 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d) of 

the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of PSF 

from the PRC as described in the ‘‘Scope 

of Investigation’’ section, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption from Ningo Dafa, Cixi 

Jiangnan, the Separate Rate Applicants 

and the PRC–wide entity on or after the 

date of publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register. We will instruct CBP 

to require a cash deposit or the posting 

of a bond equal to the weighted–average 

amount by which the normal value 

exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. 

For Far Eastern, we will direct CBP to 

suspend liquidation of any entries of 

PSF from the PRC as described in the 

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section, that 

are entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

90 days prior to the date of publication 

in the Federal Register of our 

preliminary determination. The 

suspension of liquidation will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary affirmative determination of 

sales at less than fair value. Section 

735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to 

make its final determination as to 

whether the domestic industry in the 

United States is materially injured, or 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of imports of PSF, or sales (or the 

likelihood of sales) for importation, of 

the subject merchandise within 45 days 

of our final determination. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs or other written comments 

may be submitted to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration no 

later than seven days after the date of 

the final verification report is issued in 

this proceeding and rebuttal briefs 

limited to issues raised in case briefs no 

later than five days after the deadline 

date for case briefs. A list of authorities 

used and an executive summary of 

issues should accompany any briefs 

submitted to the Department. This 

summary should be limited to five pages 

total, including footnotes. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, we will hold a public hearing, if 

requested, to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a 

request for a hearing is made, we intend 

to hold the hearing three days after the 

deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs 

at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230, at a time and 

location to be determined. Parties 

should confirm by telephone the date, 

time, and location of the hearing two 

days before the scheduled date. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests 

should contain the party’s name, 

address, and telephone number, the 

number of participants, and a list of the 

issues to be discussed. At the hearing, 

each party may make an affirmative 

presentation only on issues raised in 

that party’s case brief and may make 

rebuttal presentations only on 

arguments included in that party’s 

rebuttal brief. 

We will make our final determination 

no later than 75 days after the date of 

publication of this preliminary 

determination, pursuant to section 

735(a) of the Act. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: December 15, 2006. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–22071 Filed 12–22–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–878 

Saccharin from the People’s Republic 

of China: Notice of Partial Rescission 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) initiated 

an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on saccharin 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’), covering the period July 1, 

2005, through June 30, 2006. Based on 

the withdrawal of the requests for 

review with respect to two companies, 

we are rescinding this administrative 

review, in part. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 26, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Moats, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 8, Import Administration, Room 

1870, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5047. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 3, 2006, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on saccharin 

from the PRC. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 71 

FR 37890, (July 3, 2006). We received 

timely requests for review from Amgal 

Chemical Products (1989) Ltd. 

(‘‘Amgal’’), Shanghai Fortune Chemical 

Company, Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai Fortune’’), 

and Suzhou Fine Chemical Co. Group 

Ltd. (‘‘Suzhou’’). 

On August 30, 2006, the Department 

published a notice of the initiation of 

the administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on saccharin 

from the PRC for the period July 1, 2005, 

through June 30, 2006. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Request for 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 7 / Thursday, January 11, 2007 / Notices 1341 

1For purposes of this investigation, the 

Department of Commerce has defined the subject 

merchandise 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 (127mm). The subject merchandise 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.’’

published notice in the Federal Register 

of its determination that revocation of 

the countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) order 

on oil country tubular goods (‘‘OCTG’’) 

from Italy would not be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of a 

countervailable subsidy. Commerce 

further stated that it was revoking the 

CVD order on OCTG from Italy (71 FR 

77383) effective July 25, 2006. 

Accordingly, pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)), the five-year review of the 

countervailing duty order concerning 

OCTG from Italy (investigation No. 701–

TA–364 (Second Review)) is terminated. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 26, 

2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Ruggles (202–205–3187 or 

fruggles@usitc.gov), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired individuals are advised that 

information on this matter can be 

obtained 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 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

Authority: This five-year review is being 

terminated under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to § 207.69 of the Commission’s 

rules (19 CFR 207.69). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: January 8, 2007. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–260 Filed 1–10–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1104 (Final)] 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From 

China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase of 

an antidumping investigation. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of the final 

phase of antidumping investigation No. 

731–TA–1104 (Final) under section 

735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 

U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act) to determine 

whether an industry in the United 

States is materially injured or 

threatened with material injury, or the 

establishment of an industry in the 

United States is materially retarded, by 

reason of less-than-fair-value imports 

from China of Certain Polyester Staple 

Fiber, provided for in subheading 

5503.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States.1

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this phase of the 

investigation, hearing procedures, 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 and C (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: December 26, 

2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nathanael Comly (202–205–3174), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired 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 

this investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. The final phase of this 

investigation is being scheduled as a 

result of an affirmative preliminary 

determination by the Department of 

Commerce that imports of Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from China are 

being sold in the United States at less 

than fair value within the meaning of 

section 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). 

The investigation was requested in a 

petition filed on June 23, 2006, by DAK 

Americas, LLC, Charlotte, NC; Nan Ya 

Plastics Corporation, America, Lake 

City, SC; and Wellman, Inc., 

Shrewsbury, NJ. 

Participation in the investigation 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 final phase of this 

investigation as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

§ 201.11 of the Commission’s rules, no 

later than 21 days prior to the hearing 

date specified in this notice. A party 

that filed a notice of appearance during 

the preliminary phase of the 

investigation need not file an additional 

notice of appearance during this final 

phase. The Secretary will maintain a 

public service list containing the names 

and addresses of all persons, or their 

representatives, who are parties to the 

investigation. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list. Pursuant to 

§ 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the 

Secretary will make BPI gathered in the 

final phase of this investigation 

available to authorized applicants under 

the APO issued in the investigation, 

provided that the application is made 

no later than 21 days prior to the 

hearing date specified in this notice. 

Authorized applicants must represent 

interested parties, as defined by 19 

U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the 

investigation. A party granted access to 

BPI in the preliminary phase of the 

investigation need not reapply for such 

access. A separate service list will be 

maintained by the Secretary for those 

parties authorized to receive BPI under 

the APO. 

Staff report. The prehearing staff 

report in the final phase of this 

investigation will be placed in the 

nonpublic record on February 27, 2007, 

and a public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to § 207.22 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Hearing. The Commission will hold a 

hearing in connection with the final 

phase of this investigation beginning at 

9:30 a.m. on March 13, 2007, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building. Requests to appear at the 

hearing should be filed in writing with 

the Secretary to the Commission on or 

before March 2, 2007. A nonparty who 

has testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the hearing. All parties and 

nonparties desiring to appear at the 

hearing and make oral presentations 

should attend a prehearing conference 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
1342 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 7 / Thursday, January 11, 2007 / Notices 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on March 6, 2007, 

at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

§§ 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of 

the Commission’s rules. Parties must 

submit any request to present a portion 

of their hearing testimony in camera no 

later than 7 business days prior to the 

date of the hearing. 

Written submissions. Each party who 

is an interested party shall submit a 

prehearing brief to the Commission. 

Prehearing briefs must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.23 of the 

Commission’s rules; the deadline for 

filing is March 6, 2007. Parties may also 

file written testimony in connection 

with their presentation at the hearing, as 

provided in § 207.24 of the 

Commission’s rules, and posthearing 

briefs, which must conform with the 

provisions of § 207.25 of the 

Commission’s rules. The deadline for 

filing posthearing briefs is March 20, 

2007; witness testimony must be filed 

no later than three days before the 

hearing. In addition, any person who 

has not entered an appearance as a party 

to the investigation may submit a 

written statement of information 

pertinent to the subject of the 

investigation, including statements of 

support or opposition to the petition, on 

or before March 20, 2007. On April 5, 

2007, the Commission will make 

available to parties all information on 

which they have not had an opportunity 

to comment. Parties may submit final 

comments on this information on or 

before April 9, 2007, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with § 207.30 of the Commission’s rules. 

All written submissions must conform 

with the provisions of § 201.8 of the 

Commission’s rules; any submissions 

that contain BPI must also conform with 

the requirements of §§ 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 § 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). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the 

investigation must be served on all other 

parties to the investigation (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. 

Authority: This investigation is being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to § 207.21 of the Commission’s 

rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: January 8, 2007. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–259 Filed 1–10–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of a Consent Decree 

Under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act and 

the Clean Water Act 

Notice is hereby given that on 

December 20, 2006 a proposed Consent 

Decree ‘‘Consent Decree’’ in United 

States v. EnTire Recycling, Inc., Civil 

Action No. 8:06–CV–766 was lodged 

with the United States District Court for 

the District of Nebraska. 

In this action the United States sought 

recovery of costs incurred by the 

National Pollution Funds Center and the 

Environmental Protection Agency in 

responding to the release, discharge and 

threat of release of oil and hazardous 

substances at a tire recycling facility 

owned and operated by Defendants 

EnTire Recycling, Inc., Brock Grain 

Company, Inc. and James D. Gerking in 

Nebraska City, Nebraska. Under the 

Consent Decree, the Defendants will 

reimburse the United States 

$201,000.00. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to the Consent Decree. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to United 

States v. EnTire Recycling, Inc. D.J. Ref. 

90–5–1–1–08431. The Consent Decree 

may be examined at the Office of the 

United States Attorney, District of 

Nebraska, 1620 Dodge Street, Suite 

1400, Omaha, Nebraska 68102 and at 

U.S. EPA Region VII, 901 North 5th 

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66025. 

During the public comment period, the 

Consent Decree may also be examined 

on the following Department of Justice 

Web site, to http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

Consent Decree may also be obtained by 

mail from the Consent Decree Library, 

P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611 or 

by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia 

Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), 

fax no. (202) 514–0097, phone 

confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In 

requesting a copy from the Consent 

Decree Library, please enclose a check 

in the amount of $5.00 (25 cents per 

page reproduction cost) payable to the 

U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, 

forward a check in that amount to the 

Consent Decree Library at the stated 

address. 

Robert E. Maher, Jr., 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 07–49 Filed 1–10–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as 

part of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork and respondent burden, 

conducts a pre-clearance consultation 

program to provide the general public 

and Federal agencies with an 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

and/or continuing collections of 

information in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This 

program helps to ensure that requested 

data can be provided in the desired 

format, reporting burden (time and 

financial resources) is minimized, 

collection instruments are clearly 

understood, and the impact of collection 

requirements on respondents can be 

properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments 

concerning the proposed reinstatement 

of the ‘‘National Longitudinal Survey of 

Youth 1979.’’ A copy of the proposed 

information collection request (ICR) can 

be obtained by contacting the individual 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 27 / Friday, February 9, 2007 / Notices 6201 

1These respondents are: Cixi Jiangnan Chemical 

Fiber Co., Ltd., Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., 

Ltd., Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd., Cixi 

Santai Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd., Hangzhou Sanxin 

Paper Co., Ltd., Suzhou PolyFiber Co., Ltd., 

Zhaoqing Tifo New Fiber Co., Ltd., Nantong Luolai 

Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd., Zhejiang Waysun 

Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. and Cixi Waysun Chemical 

Fiber Co., Ltd. 

2On January 12, 2007, Far Eastern Industries 

(Shanghai) Ltd. requested a 30 day extension of the 

final determination, but did not request an 

extension of the provisional measures. 

In accordance with the Board’s 

regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff 

has been designated examiner to 

investigate the application and report to 

the Board. 

Public comment on the application is 

invited from interested parties. 

Submissions (original and 3 copies) 

shall be addressed to the Board’s 

Executive Secretary at the address 

below. The closing period for their 

receipt is [60 days from date of 

publication]. Rebuttal comments in 

response to material submitted during 

the foregoing period may be submitted 

during the subsequent 15-day period (to 

[75 days from date of publication]). 

A copy of the application and 

accompanying exhibits will be available 

for public inspection at each of the 

following locations: 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Export 

Assistance Center, 600 Superior 

Avenue, East, Suite 700,Cleveland, 

Ohio, 44114-2≤ 

Office of the Executive Secretary, 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Room 

2814B, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 

NW, Washington, D.C., 20230-2≤ 

Dated: January 22, 2007. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–2136 Filed 2–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–905 

Postponement of Final Determination 

of Antidumping Duty Investigation: 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the 

People’s Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 9, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Holton or Paul Walker, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1324 or (202) 482–

0413, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Postponement of Final Determination 

On July 13, 2006, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) initiated the 

antidumping duty investigation of 

certain polyester staple fiber from the 

People’s Republic of China. See 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Certain Polyester Staple 

Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, 71 FR 41201 (July 20, 2006) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). On December 26, 

2006, the Department published the 

Preliminary Determination in the 

antidumping duty investigation of 

certain polyester staple fiber from the 

People’s Republic of China. See 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Partial 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple 

Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, 71 FR 77373 (December 26, 

2006) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

The Preliminary Determination stated 

that the Department would make its 

final determination for this antidumping 

duty investigation no later than 75 days 

after the date of publication of the 

preliminary determination (i.e., March 

11, 2007). 

Section 735(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 

1930 (‘‘the Act’’) provides that a final 

determination may be postponed until 

not later than 135 days after the date of 

the publication of the preliminary 

determination if, in the event of an 

affirmative determination, a request for 

such postponement is made by 

exporters who account for a significant 

proportion of exports of the subject 

merchandise, or in the event of a 

negative preliminary determination, a 

request for such postponement is made 

by petitioner. In addition, the 

Department’s regulations, at 19 CFR 

351.210(e)(2), require that requests by 

respondents for postponement of a final 

determination be accompanied by a 

request for extension of provisional 

measures from a four-month period to 

not more than six months. See 19 CFR 

351.210(e)(2). 

On January 10, 2007, several 

respondents1 requested a 30-day 

extension of the final determination and 

extension of the provisional measures.2

Thus, because our preliminary 

determination is affirmative, and the 

respondents requesting an extension of 

the final determination, and an 

extension of the provisional measures, 

account for a significant proportion of 

exports of the subject merchandise, and 

no compelling reasons for denial exist, 

we are extending the due date for the 

final determination by 30 days. For the 

reasons identified above, we are 

postponing the final determination until 

April 10, 2007. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to sections 777(i) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1). 

Dated: February 1, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–2128 Filed 2–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–890 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 

Preliminary Results of New Shipper 

Reviews and Notice of Partial 

Rescission 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on wooden 

bedroom furniture from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). The period 

of review (‘‘POR’’) for this 

administrative review is June 24, 2004, 

through December 31, 2005. This 

administrative review covers multiple 

producers/exporters of the subject 

merchandise, five of which are being 

individually investigated as mandatory 

respondents. The Department is also 

conducting new shipper reviews for two 

exporters/producers. The POR for the 

new shipper reviews is also June 24, 

2004, through December 31, 2005. 

We preliminarily determine that all 

five mandatory respondents in the 

administrative review made sales in the 

United States at prices below normal 

value. With respect to the remaining 

respondents in the administrative 

review (herein after collectively referred 

to as the Separate Rate Applicants), we 

preliminarily determine that 39 entities 

have provided sufficient evidence that 

they are separate from the state–

controlled entity, and we have 

established a weighted–average margin 

based on the rates we have calculated 

for the five mandatory respondents, 

excluding any rates that are zero, de 

minimis, or based entirely on adverse 

facts available to be applied to theses 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
7676 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 32 / Friday, February 16, 2007 / Notices 

TENNESSEE 

Dickson County 

Promise Land School, Promise Land Rd., N 

of Reddon Crossing/Will G Rd., Promise, 

07000159 

Madison County 

Anderson Presbyterian Church, 899 Steam 

Mill Ferry Rd., Madison Hall, 07000157 

Roane County 

Post Oak Springs Christian Church, Roane St. 

Hwy (Old Kingston Hwy.) at Post Oak Rd., 

Post Oak, 07000156 

Williamson County 

Smithson—McCall Farm, (Historic Family 

Farms in Middle Tennessee MPS), 6779 

Comstock Rd., Bethesda, 07000158 

VERMONT 

Bennington County 

School Street Duplexes, 343–345 and 347–

349 School St., Bennington, 07000162 

Rutland County 

West Haven Baptist Church, (Religious 

Buildings, Sites and Structures in Vermont 

MPS), 48 Book Rd., West Haven, 07000161 

Washington County 

Scampini Block, 289 N. Main St., Barre, 

07000160 

Requests for removal have been made 

for the following resources: 

NEBRASKA 

Custer County 

Westcott, Gibbons & Bragg Store, Off NE 106, 

Comstock, 78001694 

Lancaster County 

(Nineteenth Century Terrace House TR), 

Baldwin Terrace, 429–443 S. 12th St., and 

1134–1142 K St., Lincoln, 79003687 

Metropolitan Apartments, 502 S. Twelfth St., 

Lincoln, 87002298 

Townsend Photography Studio, 226 S. 11th 

St., Lincoln, 84000478 

[FR Doc. E7–2713 Filed 2–15–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–51–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1104 (Final)] 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from 

China 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Revised schedule for the subject 

investigation. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 9, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nathanael Comly (202–205–3174), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired 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 

this investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 8, 2007, the Commission 

established a schedule for the conduct 

of the final phase of the subject 

investigation (72 FR 1342, January 11, 

2007). Subsequently, the Department of 

Commerce extended the date for its final 

determination in the investigation from 

March 12, 2007 to April 10, 2007 (72 FR 

6201, February 9, 2007). The 

Commission, therefore, is revising its 

schedule to conform with Commerce’s 

new schedule. 

Revisions to the Commission’s current 

schedule for the investigation are as 

follows: the deadline for filing 

posthearing briefs is changed from 

March 20 to March 22, 2007; the 

deadline for a non-party to file a 

statement of information pertinent to 

the subject of the investigation, 

including statements of support or 

opposition to the petition, is changed 

from March 20 to March 22, 2007; 

comments on Commerce’s final 

determination of sales at less than fair 

value (not to exceed 5 pages) may be 

filed on or before April 16, 2007; the 

date for final release of information by 

the Commission is changed from April 

5 to May 8, 2007; the deadline for filing 

final party comments is changed from 

April 9 to May 10, 2007. All written 

submissions shall conform to the filing 

requirements set forth in our scheduling 

notice issued January 8, 2007 (72 FR 

1341, January 11, 2007) 

For further information concerning 

this investigation see the Commission’s 

notice cited above and the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

Authority: This investigation is being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to § 207.21 of the Commission’s 

rules. 

Issued: February 13, 2007. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–2818 Filed 2–15–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission 

[F.C.S.C. Meeting Notice No. 2–07] 

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice 

The Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission, pursuant to its regulations 

(45 CFR Part 504) 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: Thursday, February 22, 

2007, at 10 a.m. 

SUBJECT MATTER: Issuance of Proposed 

Decisions, Amended Proposed 

Decisions, and Amended Final 

Decisions in claims against Albania. 

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: Administrative 

Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission, 600 E Street, NW., Room 

6002, Washington, DC 20579. 

Telephone: (202) 616–6988. 

Mauricio J. Tamargo, 

Chairman. 

[FR Doc. 07–747 Filed 2–14–07; 2:51 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4410–01–P 

Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

[OMB Number 1121–NEW] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Existing Collection in Use 

Without OMB Control Number; 

Comments Requested 

ACTION: 30-Day notice of information 

collection under review: Survey of state 

criminal history information systems. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), 

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of 

Justice Statistics (BJS), has submitted 

the following information collection 

request to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review and approval 

in accordance with the Paperwork 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
19690 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Notices 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries based on the 

amended final results. For details on the 

assessment of antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries, see Final Results. 

These amended final results are 

published in accordance with sections 

751(h) and 777(I)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: April 12, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–7449 Filed 4–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–905 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Polyester 

Staple Fiber from the People’s 

Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 19, 2007 

SUMMARY: On December 26, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the 

antidumping investigation of certain 

polyester staple fiber (‘‘PSF’’) from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

October 1, 2005, to March 31, 2006. We 

invited interested parties to comment on 

our preliminary determination of sales 

at LTFV. Based on our analysis of the 

comments we received, we have made 

changes to our calculations for the 

mandatory respondents. The final 

dumping margins for this investigation 

are listed in the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Holton or Paul Walker, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1324 or (202) 482–

0413, respectively. 

Final Determination 

We determine that PSF from the PRC 

is being, or is likely to be, sold in the 

United States at LTFV as provided in 

section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’). The estimated 

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in 

the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’

section of this notice. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The Department published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV on 

December 26, 2006. See Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple 

Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, 71 FR 77373 (December 26, 

2006) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

Between January 8 and February 16, 

2007, the Department conducted 

verifications of Cixi Jiangnan Chemical 

Fiber Co. Ltd. (‘‘Cixi Jiangnan’’), Far 

Eastern Industries (Shanghai) Ltd. (‘‘Far 

Eastern’’), Hangzhou Huachuang Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Hangzhou Huachuang’’), Jiaxing 

Fuda Chemical Fibre Factory (‘‘Fuda’’), 

Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Ningbo Dafa’’) and Zhaoqing Tifo New 

Fiber Co., Ltd. (‘‘Tifo’’). See the 

‘‘Verification’’ section below for 

additional information. 

We invited parties to comment on the 

Preliminary Determination. On March 

15, 2007, the Petitioners,1 Insituform 

Technologies, Inc. (‘‘ITI’’), Ashley 

Furniture Industries, Inc. (‘‘Ashley’’), 

Fibertex Corporation (‘‘Fibertex’’)2, Far 

Eastern, Cixi Jiangnan and Ningbo Dafa 

filed case briefs. On March 20, 2007, the 

Petitioners, Far Eastern, Cixi Jiangnan 

and Ningbo Dafa filed rebuttal briefs. 

All parties that submitted a timely 

request for a hearing in this case 

withdrew those requests. Therefore, the 

Department did not hold a hearing. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 

‘‘Investigation of Certain Polyester 

Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic 

of China: Issues and Decision 

Memorandum,’’ dated April 10, 2007, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice 

(‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’). 

A list of the issues which parties raised 

and to which we respond in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum is attached 

to this notice as an Appendix. The Issue 

and Decision Memorandum is a public 

document and is on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Main Commerce 

Building, Room B–099, and is accessible 

on the Web at http://www.trade.gov/ia. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the memorandum are identical in 

content. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Notices 19691 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of comments 

received, we have made changes to the 

margin calculation for Cixi Jiangnan, Far 

Eastern and Ningbo Dafa as follows. 

We have made the following changes 

to Cixi Jiangnan’s margin calculation: 

Other than the issues discussed 

below, we have determined to not 

include marine insurance from Cixi 

Jiangan’s CNF market economy 

purchases. At verification, Cixi Jiangnan 

provided information that it did not 

incur marine insurance. For a detailed 

analysis of Cixi Jiangnan’s margin 

calculation, see Final Determination in 

the Investigation of Certain Polyester 

Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic 

of China: Analysis Memorandum for 

Cixi Jiangnan Fiber Co. Ltd., dated April 

10, 2007. 

We have made the following changes 

to Far Eastern’s margin calculation: 

Other than the issues discussed 

below, we have determined to include 

the additional international freight 

expense that Far Eastern reported as a 

minor correction to its market economy 

international freight expense. 

Furthermore, we have also determined 

to make an adjustment to Far Eastern’s 

reported scrap by–product by capping it 

at the level of scrap it actually produced 

during the POI. Finally, we have 

determined to use a surrogate value for 

Far Eastern’s purchases of EG from its 

affiliated supplier. See below and Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 

21. For a detailed analysis of Far 

Eastern’s margin calculation, see Final 

Determination in the Investigation of 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the 

People’s Republic of China: Analysis 

Memorandum for Far Eastern Industries 

(Shanghai) Ltd., dated April 10, 2007. 

We have made the following changes 

to Ningbo Dafa’s margin calculation: 

We have determined that it is 

appropriate to apply partial facts 

available to Ningbo Dafa. As noted 

below in the ‘‘Facts Available’’ Section, 

we are applying the color–specific 

market economy purchase prices of 

Ningbo Dafa’s PET flake invoices to the 

surrogate value of PET flake, based on 

the CONNUM of the finished PSF. See 

below and Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 25. For a 

detailed analysis of Ningbo Dafa’s 

margin calculation, see see Final 

Determination in the Investigation of 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the 

People’s Republic of China: Analysis 

Memorandum for Ningbo Dafa Chemical 

Fiber Co., Ltd., dated April 10, 2007. 

In addition, the Department has made 

changes to its calculation of the 

brokerage and handling, PSF wastes and 

by–product surrogate values as 

described in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comments 5 through 9. 

Moreover, the Department has made 

changes to its calculation of surrogate 

financial ratios as described in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 12. The Department has also 

revised the surrogate value for labor to 

$0.83, using a revised expected wage 

rate posted on the Department’s website 

on February 2, 2007. Further, the 

Department determines that it is 

appropriate to apply the methodology 

described in the December 27, 2006, 

Federal Register Notice regarding the 

treatment of negative margin to this 

investigation. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4 and Final 

Modification; Calculation of the 

Weighted–Average Dumping Margin 

During an Antidumping Investigation, 

71 FR 77722 (December 27, 2006). 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise subject to this 

proceeding is 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 subject 

merchandise 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. 

The following products are excluded 

from the scope: (1) PSF of less than 3.3 

decitex (less than 3 denier) currently 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) at subheading 5503.20.0025 

and known to the industry as PSF for 

spinning and generally used in woven 

and knit applications to produce textile 

and apparel products; (2) PSF 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 (3) 

low–melt PSF defined as a bi–

component fiber with an outer, non–

polyester sheath that melts at a 

significantly lower temperature than its 

inner polyester core (classified at 

HTSUS 5503.20.0015). 

Certain PSF is classifiable under the 

HTSUS subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 

5503.20.0065. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

under the orders is dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

We received scope comments from 

ITI. However, these scope comments 

contained untimely and new factual 

information and were rejected by the 

Department. See the Department’s letter 

dated March 19, 2007. No other 

interested party submitted scope 

comments since the Preliminary 

Determination. Therefore, we have not 

changed the scope from the Initiation 

Notice. See Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty Investigation: Certain Polyester 

Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic 

of China, 71 FR 41201 (July 20, 2006) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

Facts Available 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party: (A) withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the Department; (B) fails to provide such 

information in a timely manner or in the 

form or manner requested, subject to 

subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; 

(C) significantly impedes a 

determination under the antidumping 

statute; or (D) provides such information 

but the information cannot be verified, 

the Department shall, subject to 

subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination. 

Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that, if an interested party promptly 

notifies the Department that it is unable 

to submit the information in the 

requested form and manner, together 

with a full explanation and suggested 

alternative forms in which such party is 

able to submit the information, the 

Department shall take into 

consideration the ability of the party to 

submit the information in the requested 

form and manner and may modify such 

requirements to the extent necessary to 

avoid imposing an unreasonable burden 

on that party. 

For this final determination, in 

accordance with section 776(a)(2)(B) of 

the Act and 782(c)(1) of the Act, we 

have determined that the use of neutral 

facts available is appropriate for Ningbo 

Dafa’s PET flake. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 20. 

As neutral facts available, we are 

applying the color–specific, market 

economy purchase prices of Ningbo 

Dafa’s PET flake invoices to value PET 

flake, based on the CONNUM of the 

finished PSF. See Analysis for the Final 

Determination of Certain Polyester 

Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic 

of China: Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber 

Co., Ltd., dated April 10, 2007. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the information 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
19692 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Notices 

submitted by the respondents and three 

separate rate applicants for use in our 

final determination. See the 

Department’s verification reports on the 

record of this investigation in the CRU 

with respect to Cixi Jiangnan, Far 

Eastern, Hangzhou Huachuang, Fuda, 

Ningbo Dafa and Tifo. For all verified 

companies, we used standard 

verification procedures, including 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, as well as original 

source documents provided by 

respondents. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

stated that we had selected India as the 

appropriate surrogate country to use in 

this investigation for the following 

reasons: (1) It is a significant producer 

of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at 

a similar level of economic development 

pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) 

we have reliable data from India that we 

can use to value the factors of 

production. See Preliminary 

Determination. For the final 

determination, we received no 

comments and made no changes to our 

findings with respect to the selection of 

a surrogate country. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving non–marketeconomy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the 

Department begins with a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the country are subject to government 

control and, thus, should be assigned a 

single antidumping duty deposit rate. It 

is the Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), 

as amplified by Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’), and 

Section 351.107(d) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern 

and Ningbo Dafa, and the separate rate 

applicants who received a separate rate 

(‘‘Separate Rate Applicants’’) in the 

Preliminary Determination 

demonstrated their eligibility for 

separate–rate status. For the final 

determination, we continue to find that 

the evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by Cixi Jiangnan, Far 

Eastern and Ningbo Dafa, and the 

Separate Rate Applicants demonstrate 

both a de jure and de facto absence of 

government control, with respect to 

their respective exports of the 

merchandise under investigation, and, 

thus are eligible for separate rate status. 

The PRC–Wide Rate 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department found that certain 

companies and the PRC–wide entity did 

not respond to our requests information. 

In the Preliminary Determination we 

treated these PRC producers/exporters 

as part of the PRC–wide entity because 

they did not demonstrate that they 

operate free of government control over 

their export activities. No additional 

information has been placed on the 

record with respect to these entities 

after the Preliminary Determination. 

The PRC–wide entity has not provided 

the Department with the requested 

information; therefore, pursuant to 

section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the 

Department continues to find that the 

use of facts available is appropriate to 

determine the PRC–wide rate. Section 

776(b) of the Act provides that, in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, the Department 

may employ an adverse inference if an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold–

Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel 

Products from the Russian Federation, 

65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). 

See also, ‘‘Statement of Administrative 

Action’’ accompanying the URAA, H.R. 

Rep. No. 103–316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) 

(‘‘SAA’’). We determined that, because 

the PRC–wide entity did not respond to 

our request for information, it has failed 

to cooperate to the best of its ability. 

Therefore, the Department finds that, in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, an adverse 

inference is appropriate for the PRC–

wide entity. 

Because we begin with the 

presumption that all companies within 

a NME country are subject to 

government control and because only 

the companies listed under the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below 

have overcome that presumption, we are 

applying a single antidumping rate - the 

PRC–wide rate - to all other exporters of 

subject merchandise from the PRC. Such 

companies did not demonstrate 

entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g., 

Synthetic Indigo from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000). 

The PRC–wide rate applies to all entries 

of subject merchandise except for 

entries from the respondents which are 

listed in the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section below (except as 

noted). 

Critical Circumstances 

In the Preliminary Determiantion, we 

found that there have been massive 

imports of the subject merchandise over 

a relatively short period for Far Eastern. 

In addition, we relied on a period of six 

months as the period, which was the 

maximum duration for the information 

we had available at that time, for 

comparison in preliminarily 

determining whether imports of the 

subject merchandise were massive. 

For the final determination, however, 

we collected an additional three months 

of data from the respondents. After 

analyzing the additional data, we 

continue to find that Far Eastern had 

massive imports of PSF over a relatively 

short period of time. See Memorandum 

from James C. Doyle, Office Director, to 

Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary, Preliminary Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, (December 15, 2006) at 

2–3 (‘‘Critical Circumstances Memo’’), 

dated April 10, 2007. Moreover, we 

continue to find that Ningbo Dafa, Cixi 

Jiangnan, the Separate Rates Applicants 

and the PRC–wide entity did not have 

massive imports of PSF over a relatively 

short period of time. Id. 

Corroboration 

At the Preliminary Determination, in 

accordance with section 776(c) of the 

Act, we corroborated our adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’) margin by comparing 

the U.S. price and normal values from 

the petition to the U.S. price and normal 

values for the respondents. We continue 

to find that the margin of 44.30 percent 

has probative value. See Memorandum 

to the File: Corroboration of the PRC–

Wide Facts Available Rate for the Final 

Determination in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple 

Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, dated April 10, 2007 (‘‘Final 

Corroboration Memo’’). Accordingly, we 

find that the rate of 44.30 percent is 

corroborated within the meaning of 

section 776(c) of the Act. 

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the following 

percentage weighted–average margins 

exist for the POI: 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Notices 19693 

PSF FROM THE PRC - WEIGHTED–

AVERAGE DUMPING MARGINS

Exporter & Producer Weighted–Average 

Deposit Rate 

Cixi Jiangnan Chemical 

Co., Ltd. .................... de minimis 

Far Eastern Industries 

(Shanghai) Ltd. ......... 3.47% 

Ningbo Dafa Chemical 

Fiber Co., Ltd. ........... 4.86% 

Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. .... 4.44% 

Cixi Santai Chemical 

Fiber Co., Ltd. ........... 4.44% 

Cixi Waysun Chemical 

Fiber Co., Ltd. ........... 4.44% 

Hangzhou Best Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd. .... 4.44% 

Hangzhou Hanbang 

Chemical Fibre Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.44% 

Hangzhou Huachuang 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.44% 

Hangzhou Sanxin Paper 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.44% 

Hangzhou Taifu Textile 

Fiber Co., Ltd. ........... 4.44% 

Jiaxang Fuda Chemical 

Fibre Factory ............. 4.44% 

Nantong Luolai Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd. ..... 4.44% 

Nanyang Textile Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.44% 

Suzhou PolyFiber Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.44% 

Xiamen Xianglu Fiber 

Chemical Co. ............ 4.44% 

Zhaoqing Tifo New 

Fiber Co., Ltd. ........... 4.44% 

Zhejiang Anshun 

Pettechs Fibre Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.44% 

Zhejiang Waysun 

Chemical Fiber Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.44% 

PRC–Wide Rate ........... 44.30% 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the 

Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to continue 

to suspend liquidation of all entries of 

subject merchandise from Ningo Dafa, 

the Separate Rate Applicants and the 

PRC–wide entity entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after December 26, 2006, the date of 

publication of the Preliminary 

Determination. CBP shall continue to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond equal to the estimated amount by 

which the normal value exceeds the 

U.S. price as shown above. 

The Department continues to find that 

critical circumstances exist for Far 

Eastern therefore, the Department will 

direct the CBP suspend liquidation of 

any entries of PSF from the PRC as 

described in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ section, that are entered, 

or withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption 90 days before the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. These suspension of 

liquidation instructions will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

With respect to Cixi Jiangnan, the 

Department will instruct CBP not to 

suspend liquidation of any entries of 

PSF from the PRC as described in the 

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section, that 

are entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Department 

will not require any cash deposit or 

posting of a bond for Cixi Jiangnan 

when the subject merchandise is 

produced and exported by Cixi 

Jiangnan. These suspension of 

liquidation instructions will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of our final determination of sales at 

LTFV. As our final determination is 

affirmative, in accordance with section 

735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the 

ITC will determine whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise. 

If the ITC determines that material 

injury or threat of material injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the 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. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. This 

determination and notice are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

This determination and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: April 10, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Changes from the Preliminary 

Determination 

General Comments: 

Comment 1: Zeroing/Targeted Dumping 

Comment 2: Adjustments to Market 

Economy Purchases–Foreign Inland 

Freight 

Comment 3: Adjustments to Market 

Economy Purchases–Foreign Brokerage 

& Handling 

Comment 4: Adjustments to Market 

Economy Purchases–Application of PRC 

Duties 

Surrogate Value Comments: 

Comment 5: Surrogate Value for 

Brokerage & Handling 

Comment 6: Surrogate Value for Waste 

Inputs 

Comment 7: Surrogate Value for 

Polymer Polyester Staple Fiber Waste 

Comment 8: Surrogate Value for Lump, 

Popcorn or X–ray Film 

Comment 9: Surrogate Value for Scrap 

Waste By–Product 

Comment 10: Surrogate Value for Labor 

Comment 11: Surrogate Value for Alkali 

Flake 

Comment 12: Calculation of Surrogate 

Financial Ratios 

Comment 13: General Export Subsidy 

Countries and Market Economy Inputs 

Company Specific Comments - Cixi 

Jiangnan: 

Comment 14: Cixi Jiangnan’s Sales to 

Trading Companies 

Comment 15: Cixi Jiangnan’s 

International Freight for Its U.S. Sales 

Comment 16: Cixi Jiangnan’s Indirect 

Labor 

Comment 17: Insurance for Cixi’s 

Market Economy Purchases 

Company Specific Comments - Far 

Eastern: 

Comment 18: Far Eastern’s Critical 

Circumstances 

Comment 19: Far Eastern’s Reported 

Scrap Offsets 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
19694 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Notices 

Comment 20: Far Eastern’s Bank 

Charges 

Comment 21: Far Eastern’s Market 

Economy Price for Ethylene Glycol 

Comment 22: Far Eastern’s Market 

Economy Price Adjustments for Purified 

Terephthalic Acid (‘‘PTA’’) 

Comment 23: Far Eastern’s Brokerage 

and Handling Expenses 

Company Specific Comments - Ningbo 

Dafa: 

Comment 24: Ningbo Dafa’s 

Consumption of Oils 

Comment 25: Ningbo Dafa’s Market 

Economy Purchases and Factor Usage of 

PET Flake 

[FR Doc. E7–7386 Filed 4–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–894] 

Certain Tissue Paper Products from 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice 

of Extension of Time Limit for Final 

Results of First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 19, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristina Horgan or Bobby Wong, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–8173 or (202) 482–

0409, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 9, 2007, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) published 

in the Federal Register the preliminary 

results of this antidumping duty 

administrative review. See Certain 

Tissue Paper Products from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 17477 (April 09, 2007). 

Extension of Time Limits for Final 

Results 

Pursuant to Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 

and section 351.213(h)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

Department shall issue the final results 

of review within 120 days after the date 

on which the notice of the preliminary 

results was published in the Federal 

Register. However, if the Department 

determines that it is not practicable to 

complete the review within this time 

period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act 

and section 351.213(h)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations allow the 

Department to extend this time period 

to 180 days. 

In the instant review, the Department 

finds that the current deadline for the 

final results is impracticable. 

Specifically, the Department requires 

additional time to conduct verifications 

of the exporters and their producers and 

to review and analyze interested party 

comments, including issues involving 

alleged third–country shipments of 

subject merchandise. As a result, the 

Department has determined to extend 

the current time limits of this 

administrative review. For these 

reasons, the Department is fully 

extending the time limit for the 

completion of these final results until 

no later than Tuesday, October 9, 2007, 

in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Act. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: April 12, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–7452 Filed 4–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–580–851] 

Dynamic Random Access Memory 

Semiconductors from the Republic of 

Korea: Extension of Time Limit for 

Preliminary Results of the 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 19, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yasmin Nair at (202) 482–3813 or David 

Neubacher at (202) 482–5823; AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 29, 2006, the 

Department published a notice of 

initiation of administrative review of the 

countervailing duty order on dynamic 

random access memory semiconductors 

from the Republic of Korea, covering the 

period January 1, 2005 through 

December 31, 2005. See Notice of 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 

2006). On December 11, 2006, the 

petitioner alleged that Hynix 

Semiconductor, Inc., received new 

subsidies. 

Statutory Time Limits 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

requires the Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) to issue the 

preliminary results of an administrative 

review within 245 days after the last day 

of the anniversary month of an order for 

which a review is requested and the 

final results of review within 120 days 

after the date on which the preliminary 

results are published. If it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within the time period, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 

Department to extend these deadlines to 

a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, 

respectively. 

Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results 

This administrative review is 

extraordinarily complicated due to the 

complexity of the countervailable 

subsidy practices found in the 

investigation and the new subsidy 

allegations. Because the Department 

requires additional time to review, 

analyze, and possibly verify the 

information, and to issue supplemental 

questionnaires, if necessary, it is not 

practicable to complete this review 

within the originally anticipated time 

limit (i.e., by May 3, 2007). Therefore, 

the Department is extending the time 

limit for completion of the preliminary 

results to not later than August 31, 2007, 

in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Act. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: April 12, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–7451 Filed 4–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
 
B-1

APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s

hearing:

Subject: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from China

Inv. No.: 731-TA-1104 (Final)

Date and Time: March 13, 2007 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with this investigation in the Main Hearing Room (room 101), 500

E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

OPENING REMARKS:

Petitioners (Paul C. Rosenthal, Kelley Drye Collier Shannon)

Respondents (Robert A. Shapiro, Thompson Coburn LLP)

In Support of the Imposition of

 Antidumping Duties:

Kelley Drye Collier Shannon

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

DAK Americas LLC

Wellman, Inc.

Nan Ya Plastics Corp. Americas

Gisela Katz, Manager, Market Planning,

Wellman, Inc.

Joseph Chandrl, Account Manager, Nan Ya

Plastics Corp. Americas

Jon McNaull, Fibers Business Director, DAK

Americas LLC

Ricky Lane, Director, Public Affairs, Trade

Relations, and Corporate Communications,

DAK Americas LLC
B-4

In Support of the Imposition of

 Antidumping Duties (continued):

Patrick Magrath, Director, Georgetown Economic

Services

Gina Beck, Economist, Georgetown Economic

Services

Paul C. Rosenthal )

 – OF COUNSEL Kathleen W. Cannon )

In Opposition to the Imposition of

 Antidumping Duties:

Mowry International Group, LLC

Bethesda, MD

on behalf of

Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc.

Jay Plummer, Corporate Vendor and Supply Chain

Manager, Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc.

Kristin H. Mowry )

 – OF COUNSEL Jill A. Cramer )

Thompson Coburn LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Insituform Technologies, Inc.

Kyle Costa, Director of Engineering, Insituform

Technologies

Weiping Wang, Engineering Manager, Insituform

Technologies

April Greer, Corporate Counsel, Insituform

Technologies

Robert A. Shapiro )

 – OF COUNSEL Laura Martino )
B-5

In Opposition to the Imposition of

 Antidumping Duties (continued):

Hollander Home Fashions Corp.

Boca Raton, FL

Rich Epstein, Consultant

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

Petitioners (Paul C. Rosenthal, Kelley Drye Collier Shannon)

Respondents (Robert A. Shapiro, Thompson Coburn LLP)
 
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

Table C-1

Certain PSF: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2004-06

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; 

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2004 2005 2006 2004-06 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,128,375 1,152,674 1,066,891 -5.4 2.2 -7.4

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.2 52.3 46.9 -13.4 -7.9 -5.4

 Importers' share (1):

 China (subject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.6 16.0 15.9 -2.7 -2.6 -0.1

 Taiwan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 4.7 3.5 -2.9 -1.7 -1.2

 Subtotal, Korea & Taiwan. . . . . . . . . 25.0 20.7 19.4 -5.6 -4.3 -1.3

 China (nonsubject). . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Thailand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 3.8 3.1 -0.6 0.1 -0.7

 Indonesia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 2.2 4.1 2.9 1.0 1.9

 India. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 1.8 2.0 0.5 0.4 0.1

 Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 0.8 0.0 -1.0 -0.2 -0.8

 All other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 1.5 2.2 1.1 0.3 0.8

 Subtotal, nonsubject. . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.8 47.7 53.1 13.4 7.9 5.4

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637,604 770,478 702,238 10.1 20.8 -8.9

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.2 55.5 52.6 -9.7 -6.7 -3.0

 Importers' share (1):

 China (subject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.8 14.1 13.3 -2.5 -1.7 -0.8

 Taiwan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8 4.8 3.5 -3.3 -2.0 -1.3

 Subtotal, Korea & Taiwan. . . . . . . . . 22.6 18.9 16.8 -5.8 -3.7 -2.1

 China (nonsubject). . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Thailand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 4.1 3.3 -0.9 -0.1 -0.8

 Indonesia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 2.0 3.9 2.8 0.9 1.9

 India. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 1.6 1.7 0.5 0.4 0.2

 Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 1.2 0.0 -1.7 -0.4 -1.2

 All other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 2.2 3.3 1.9 0.8 1.1

 Subtotal, nonsubject. . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.8 44.5 47.4 9.7 6.7 3.0

U.S. imports from:

 China (subject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other--

 Korea:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209,856 184,832 169,865 -19.1 -11.9 -8.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,920 108,549 93,297 -7.6 7.6 -14.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.48 0.59 0.55 14.2 22.1 -6.5

 Taiwan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72,376 54,139 37,471 -48.2 -25.2 -30.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,262 36,971 24,549 -43.3 -14.5 -33.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.60 0.68 0.66 9.6 14.2 -4.1

 Subtotal (Korea + Taiwan):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282,232 238,971 207,336 -26.5 -15.3 -13.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144,181 145,521 117,847 -18.3 0.9 -19.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.51 $0.61 $0.57 11.3 19.2 -6.7

Table continued on next page.

C-3
Table C-1--continued

Certain PSF: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2004-06

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; 

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2004 2005 2006 2004-06 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. imports from:

 China (nonsubject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Thailand:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,848 43,475 33,177 -20.7 3.9 -23.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,694 31,598 23,282 -12.8 18.4 -26.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.64 0.73 0.70 10.0 13.9 -3.4

 Indonesia:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,657 24,830 43,378 242.7 96.2 74.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,722 15,438 27,199 304.6 129.7 76.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.53 0.62 0.63 18.1 17.1 0.8

 India:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,147 21,090 20,914 29.5 30.6 -0.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,654 12,205 12,199 59.4 59.5 -0.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.47 0.58 0.58 23.1 22.1 0.8

 Mexico:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,854 9,702 242 -98.0 -18.2 -97.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,644 9,468 125 -98.8 -11.1 -98.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.90 0.98 0.52 -42.6 8.7 -47.1

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,549 16,743 23,990 91.2 33.4 43.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,694 16,753 22,901 163.4 92.7 36.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.69 1.00 0.95 37.8 44.4 -4.6

 Subtotal (nonsubject imports)

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity (2) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448,568 549,684 566,730 26.3 22.5 3.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240,799 342,599 333,096 38.3 42.3 -2.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.54 $0.62 $0.59 9.5 16.1 -5.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . 83,501 121,306 89,029 6.6 45.3 -26.6

Table continued on next page.

C-4
Table C-1--continued

Certain PSF: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2004-06

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; 

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2004 2005 2006 2004-06 2004-05 2005-06

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . . . . . . 889,565 843,607 774,942 -12.9 -5.2 -8.1

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 733,677 657,064 573,068 -21.9 -10.4 -12.8

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.5 77.9 73.9 -8.5 -4.6 -3.9

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 679,807 602,990 500,161 -26.4 -11.3 -17.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396,805 427,879 369,142 -7.0 7.8 -13.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.58 $0.71 $0.74 26.4 21.6 4.0

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,186 54,444 63,830 27.2 8.5 17.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,391 37,501 44,616 62.9 36.9 19.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.55 $0.69 $0.70 28.1 26.2 1.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . 35,984 36,520 42,901 19.2 1.5 17.5

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . . . . . . 4.9 5.6 7.6 2.7 0.6 2.1

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,106 1,001 968 -12.5 -9.5 -3.3

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,314 2,185 2,079 -10.1 -5.6 -4.8

 Wages paid ($1,000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,035 39,636 37,052 -7.5 -1.0 -6.5

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17.30 $18.14 $17.82 3.0 4.8 -1.8

 Productivity (pounds per hour) . . . . . . . 316.6 294.1 268.6 -15.2 -7.1 -8.6

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.05 $0.06 $0.07 21.4 12.9 7.5

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727,996 642,785 553,253 -24.0 -11.7 -13.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422,770 454,139 404,209 -4.4 7.4 -11.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.58 $0.71 $0.73 25.8 21.7 3.4

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . . . . . . 426,288 432,193 397,741 -6.7 1.4 -8.0

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3,518) 21,946 6,468 (3) (3) -70.5

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,758 13,342 11,912 1.3 13.5 -10.7

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . (15,276) 8,603 (5,444) 64.4 (3) (3)

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,021 1,157 1,466 -27.5 -42.8 26.7

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.59 $0.67 $0.72 22.8 14.8 6.9

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.02 $0.02 $0.02 33.3 28.5 3.7

 Unit operating income or (loss) . . . . . . ($0.02) $0.01 ($0.01) 53.1 (3) (3)

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.8 95.2 98.4 -2.4 -5.7 3.2

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3.6) 1.9 (1.3) 2.3 5.5 -3.2

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Includes inventories from all sources other than subject China.

 (3) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis.

Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official statistics of the

U.S. Department of Commerce.

C-5
 
D-1

APPENDIX D

LIST OF PURCHASERS

D-3

Table D-1

Certain PSF: U.S. purchasers, their U.S. office locations, sources of purchases, types of firms, and

shares of apparent consumption in 2006

* * * * * * *
 
E-1

APPENDIX E

NONSUBJECT SOURCES’ PRICING DATA

Table E-1

Certain PSF: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers and importers of 

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2004-December 2006

Period

U.S. producers

Imports from China

(nonsubject)1 Imports from India Imports from Indonesia2 

Quantity Price Quantity Price Margin Quantity Price Margin Quantity Price Margin Qua

1,000

pounds

Per

pound

1,000

pounds

Per

pound Percent

1,000

pounds

Per

pound Percent

1,000

pounds

Per

pound Percent

1,

pou

2004: Jan.-Mar. 55,427 $0.57 -- -- -- *** *** *** *** *** *** *

 Apr.-June 53,490 0.59 -- -- -- *** *** *** *** *** *** * July-Sept. 58,989 0.61 -- -- -- *** *** *** *** *** *** * Oct.-Dec. 57,494 0.63 -- -- -- *** *** *** *** *** *** *2005: Jan.-Mar. 52,217 0.70 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** * Apr.-June 51,226 0.72 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** * July-Sept. 51,930 0.74 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** * Oct.-Dec. 44,631 0.78 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *2006: Jan.-Mar. 45,635 0.75 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** * Apr.-June 42,974 0.78 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** * July-Sept. 43,412 0.79 -- -- -- *** *** *** *** *** *** * Oct.-Dec. 42,801 0.78 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *

Table continued on the next page.

E-3
Table E-1--Continued

Certain PSF: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers and importers of 

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2004-December 2006

Period

Imports from Taiwan Imports from Thailand Imports 

Quantity Price Margin Quantity Price Margin Quantity 

1,000 pounds Per pound Percent 1,000 pounds Per pound Percent 1,000 pounds Pe

2004: Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** *** *** *** --  Apr.-June *** *** *** *** *** *** --  July-Sept. *** *** *** *** *** *** --  Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** *** *** -- 2005: Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  Apr.-June *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  July-Sept. *** *** *** *** *** *** --  Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** *** *** -- 2006: Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  Apr.-June *** *** *** *** *** *** --  July-Sept. *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** *** *** -- 

1 These data include imports from *** as reported by ***.2 *** reported data for imports of product 1 from Indonesia, where the product it imported had *** of the PSF and that made the imports a higher-value 

interview with ***.Product 1.–Virgin and/or regenerated polyester staple fiber–5-7 denier, solid, dry.Source: Compiled from information submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

E-4
Table E-2

Certain PSF: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers and importers of 

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2004-December 2006

Period

U.S. producers

Imports from China

(nonsubject)1 Imports from India Imports from Indonesia 

Quantity Price Quantity Price Margin Quantity Price Margin Quantity Price Margin Qua

1,000

pounds

Per

pound

1,000

pounds

Per

pound Percent

1,000

pounds

Per

pound Percent

1,000

pounds

Per

pound Percent

1,

pou

2004: Jan.-Mar. 12,469 $0.52 *** *** *** -- -- -- *** *** ***  Apr.-June 11,378 0.55 *** *** *** -- -- -- *** *** ***  July-Sept. 18,474 0.57 *** *** *** *** *** *** -- -- -- * Oct.-Dec. 23,585 0.62 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2005: Jan.-Mar. 13,632 0.66 *** *** *** *** *** *** -- -- --  Apr.-June 17,289 0.68 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  July-Sept. 14,813 0.66 *** *** *** *** *** *** -- -- --  Oct.-Dec. 13,562 0.72 *** *** *** *** *** *** -- -- -- 2006: Jan.-Mar. 7,726 0.67 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  Apr.-June 8,637 0.65 *** *** *** *** *** *** -- -- --  July-Sept. 16,354 0.70 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  Oct.-Dec. 12,016 0.70 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Table continued on the next page.

E-5
Table E-2--Continued

Certain PSF: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers and importers of 

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2004-December 2006

Period

Imports from Korea

Imports from Saudi

Arabia Imports from Taiwan Imports from Thailand 

Quantity Price Margin Quantity Price Margin Quantity Price Margin Quantity Price Margin Q

1,000

pounds

Per

pound Percent

1,000

pounds

Per

pound Percent

1,000

pounds

Per

pound Percent

1,000

pounds

Per

pound Percent

p

2004: Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  Apr.-June *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  July-Sept. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2005:

Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** -- -- -- *** *** *** *** *** *** 

 Apr.-June *** *** *** -- -- -- *** *** *** -- -- --  July-Sept. *** *** *** -- -- -- *** *** *** -- -- --  Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** -- -- -- *** *** *** -- -- -- 2006:

Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** -- -- -- *** *** *** -- -- -- 

 Apr.-June *** *** *** -- -- -- *** *** *** -- -- --  July-Sept. *** *** *** -- -- -- *** *** *** -- -- --  Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** -- -- -- *** *** *** -- -- -- 

1 These data include imports from *** as reported by ***.

Product 2.–Virgin and/or regenerated polyester staple fiber–5-7 denier, hollow, slick.

Source: Compiled from information submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

E-6
Table E-3

Certain PSF: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers and importers of 

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2004-December 2006

Period

U.S. producers Imports from India Imports from Korea Imports from Taiwan I

Quantity Price Quantity Price Margin Quantity Price Margin Quantity Price Margin Qua

1,000

pounds

Per

pound

1,000

pounds

Per

pound Percent

1,000

pounds

Per

pound Percent

1,000

pounds

Per

pound Percent

1,

pou

2004: Jan.-Mar. 17,649 $0.53 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  Apr.-June 19,130 0.56 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  July-Sept. 20,071 0.58 *** *** *** *** *** *** -- -- --  Oct.-Dec. 24,101 0.60 *** *** *** *** *** *** -- -- -- 2005: Jan.-Mar. 23,614 0.66 *** *** *** *** *** *** -- -- --  Apr.-June 24,818 0.67 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  July-Sept. 23,241 0.67 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  Oct.-Dec. 25,856 0.72 *** *** *** *** *** *** -- -- -- 2006: Jan.-Mar. 26,257 0.68 *** *** *** *** *** *** -- -- --  Apr.-June 25,320 0.66 *** *** *** *** *** *** -- -- --  July-Sept. 20,900 0.69 *** *** *** *** *** *** -- -- --  Oct.-Dec. 19,893 0.70 *** *** *** *** *** *** -- -- -- *

Product 3.–Virgin polyester staple fiber–12-15 denier, solid, dry.Source: Compiled from information submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

E-7
E-8

Table E-4

Certain PSF: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers

and importers of product 4, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2004-

December 2006

* * * * * * *

Table E-5

Certain PSF: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers

and importers of product 5, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2004-

December 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure E-1

Certain PSF: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per pound as reported by U.S. producers and

importers of product 1, by quarters, January 2004-December 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure E-2

Certain PSF: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per pound as reported by U.S. producers and

importers of product 2, by quarters, January 2004-December 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure E-3

Certain PSF: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per pound as reported by U.S. producers and

importers of product 3, by quarters, January 2004-December 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure E-4

Certain PSF: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per pound as reported by U.S. producers and

importers of product 4, by quarters, January 2004-December 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure E-5

Certain PSF: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per pound as reported by U.S. producers and

importers of product 5, by quarters, January 2004-December 2006

* * * * * * *
F-1

APPENDIX F

ALLEGED EFFECTS OF SUBJECT IMPORTS ON U.S. PRODUCERS’ 

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION EFFORTS,

GROWTH, INVESTMENT, AND ABILITY TO RAISE CAPITAL

F-3

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any actual or potential negative effects since

January 1, 2004, on their return on investment, growth, investment, ability to raise capital, existing

development and production efforts (including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced

version of the product), or the scale of capital investments as a result of imports of certain polyester

staple fiber from China. Their responses are as follows:

Actual Negative Effects

*** “Yes. Denial or rejection of investment proposal.”

*** “Yes. Cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects, denial or rejection

of investment proposal, reduction in the size of capital investments, rejection of bank

loans, lowering of credit rating, ***.”

*** “No.”

*** “Yes. ***.”

*** “Yes. Cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects. ***.”

*** “Yes. Cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects.” 

*** “No.”
F-4

Anticipated Negative Effects

*** “Yes. *** anticipates significant negative impact and significant increases in imports

from China. The low prices combined with the increased import volumes will cause

***’s market share in this category of products to decline along with U.S. shipments,

revenues generated, and profitability. Given the current declining state of the textiles

business in the U.S., alternative markets are not available which would yield a longer

term response of partial or complete shutdown of production capacity and termination of

employment for those employees supporting such capacity, this in turn would be

compounded by significant financial deterioration for the company as a whole.”

*** “Yes. Difficult to grow against imports.”

*** “Yes. The trend we have seen, of declining prices and increased volumes of certain

polyester staple fiber imported from China, will continue. This has, and will continue to

put severe price pressure on domestically manufactured certain polyester staple fiber,

resulting in depressed prices, volume losses, and reduced profitability. Imports of

polyester staple fiber are the main reason that ***. If imports of certain PSF from China

are not constrained, ***.”

*** “No.”

*** “Yes. ***.”

*** “Yes. In order to compete against cheaper import fiber, we have to lower our selling

price, resulting in loss of revenue, and loss of sales.”

*** “No.”