U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4067 March 2009

Washington, DC 20436

Polyvinyl Alcohol from China, Japan, and 

Korea

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1014, 1016, and 1017 (Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Angela Wissler, Investigator 

Jeffery Clark, Industry Analyst 

Catherine DeFilippo, Economist 

Charles Yost, Accountant 

Mary Jane Alves, Attorney 

Ryan Trapani, Attorney 

Steven Hudgens, Statistician 

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4067 March 2009

Polyvinyl Alcohol from China, Japan, and 

Korea

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1014, 1016, and 1017 (Review)

i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Separate and dissenting views of Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson regarding 

cumulation and regarding no likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material 

injury if the antidumping duty order on certain PVA from Korea is revoked . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Part I: Introduction and overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

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

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

The Commission’s investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Subsequent proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

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

Related Title VII investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

The Commission’s investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Subsequent proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Commerce’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Results of five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18
ii

CONTENTS

Page

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

Channels of distribution / market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-4

U.S. supply ............................................................... II-4

Subject imports from China, Japan, and Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-6

U.S. imports from nonsubject countries ......................................... II-10

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-10

Foreign demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-14

Substitutability issues ......................................................... II-15

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-16

Comparisons of U.S.-produced and imported PVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-19

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-24

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-24

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-25

Substitution elasticities ...................................................... II-25

Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry ............................................ III-1

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

Background ............................................................... III-1

Changes experienced in operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

Anticipated changes in existing operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization .......................... III-2

Constraints on capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-3

U.S. producers’ domestic shipments, company transfers, and export shipments ............ III-3

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ............................................ III-5

U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity ................................ III-5

Financial experience of U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-6

Background ............................................................... III-6

Total PVA operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-6

Merchant market operations on PVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-9

Variance analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-9

Assets and return on investment ............................................... III-10

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses ........................ III-10
iii

CONTENTS

Page

Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

Leading nonsubject sources of PVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

Excluded forms of PVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

Cumulation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

Fungibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

Geographic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Presence in the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

The industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

PVA operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

The industry in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-12

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-12

PVA operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

The industry in Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-15

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-15

PVA operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-15

Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-18

Supply and demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-18

Prices of PVA in the U.S. market compared to prices in other countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-22

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

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

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

Tariff rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Transportation costs to the U.S. Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7

Questionnaire price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-8

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-9

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-13
iv

CONTENTS

Page

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices and the Commission’s statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Commission’s hearing witnesses list (reserved) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

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

D. Responses by U.S. producers, U.S. importers, U.S. purchasers, and foreign producers 

 Concerning the significance of the antidumping duty orders and the likely effects of 

 revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. U.S. producers’ shipments by type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

F. Nonsubject price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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

astericks.
 1

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

 2

 Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson dissenting with respect to Korea.

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1014, 1016, and 1017 (Review)

POLYVINYL ALCOHOL FROM CHINA, JAPAN, AND KOREA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States

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

1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on polyvinyl alcohol from

China, Japan, and Korea would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.2

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these reviews on June 2, 2008 (73 F.R. 31507) and determined on

September 5, 2008 that it would conduct full reviews (73 F.R. 53443, September 16, 2008). Notice of the

scheduling of the Commission’s reviews 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 September 22, 2008 (73 F.R.

54619). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on January 27, 2009, and all persons who requested

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

 Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson concurs that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on imports of certain

PVA from China and Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in

the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time; he concludes, however, that revocation of the antidumping

duty order on imports of certain PVA from Korea would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See Separate and Dissenting

Views of Vice Chairman Pearson Regarding Cumulation and Regarding No Likelihood of Continuation or

Recurrence of Material Injury if the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain PVA from Korea is Revoked.

 2

 See, e.g., Polyvinyl Alcohol from China, Germany, Japan, Korea, and Singapore, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1014 to

1018 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3553 (Oct. 2002).

 3

 The Commission did not cumulate imports of subject merchandise produced in China or exported from China by

companies other than SVW with other subject imports because there was very limited information about non-SVW

imports into the United States, there was no information concerning the end-use applications of these imports, the

quantities involved were very small, and these imports were very sporadic.

 4

 See, e.g., Polyvinyl Alcohol from Germany and Japan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1015 and 1016 (Final), USITC Pub.

3604 (June 2003). The Commission majority’s opinion reflected the views of Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun

as well as then-Commissioners Stephen Koplan and Marcia E. Miller. Then-Commissioner Jennifer A. Hillman

made a negative final determination regarding imports from Japan.

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

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

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

into the United States of certain polyvinyl alcohol (“PVA”) from the People’s Republic of China

(“China”), Japan, and the Republic of Korea (“Korea”) would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.1

I. BACKGROUND

Original Investigations. On September 5, 2002, Celanese Chemicals, Ltd. (“Celanese”) and E.I.

DuPont de Nemours & Co. (“DuPont”) filed antidumping duty petitions regarding imports from China,

Germany, Japan, Korea, and Singapore. The Commission made affirmative preliminary determinations

with respect to imports from four of these countries, but terminated its investigation regarding imports

from Singapore after finding these imports negligible.2

Because the schedules became staggered at the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”), in

the final phase of the original investigations the Commission first considered whether the domestic

industry was materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports from

Germany and Japan. In June 2003, the Commission made an affirmative final threat determination with

respect to subject imports from Japan but a negative final determination regarding imports from Germany. 

Imports from Sinopec Sichuan Vinylon Works (“SVW”), a producer of subject merchandise in China,

were not eligible for cumulation at that time because Commerce had made a negative preliminary

antidumping duty determination regarding imports from SVW.3

 Moreover, the Commission did not

cumulate other imports from China with imports from Japan, although it did cumulate imports from Japan

with imports from Korea for its threat analysis.4

By the time of the Commission’s final injury determination regarding imports from China and

Korea in September 2003, imports from SVW had become eligible for cumulation because Commerce

made an affirmative final antidumping duty determination regarding imports from SVW. For its latter

determination, the Commission cumulated subject imports from China, Japan, and Korea and made
 5

 See, e.g., Polyvinyl Alcohol from China and Korea, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1014 and 1017 (Final), USITC Pub.

3634 (Sept. 2003). The Commission majority’s opinion reflected the views of Commissioner Okun as well as thenCommissioners Hillman, Koplan, and Miller. Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane did not participate in the

investigations. 

Because all imports from the three subject countries are eligible for cumulation in these reviews, we have

given more weight to the Commission’s findings in the second of the two staggered original investigations wherein

imports from all three subject countries were eligible for cumulation, although we have considered the

Commission’s findings in both of the original investigations.

 6

 See, e.g., 68 Fed. Reg. 39518 (July 2, 2003) (Japan); 68 Fed. Reg. 56620 (Oct. 1, 2003) (China); 68 Fed. Reg.

56621 (Oct. 1, 2003) (Korea); Confidential Staff Report, Memorandum INV-GG-015 (Feb. 26, 2009) (“CR”) at I-2;

Polyvinyl Alcohol from China, Japan, and Korea, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1014, 1016, and 1017 (Review), USITC Pub.

4067 (Mar. 2009) (“PR”) at I-1.

 7

 See, e.g., CR at I-3; PR at I-2. SVW also appealed Commerce’s final determination in the original investigation

to the CIT, and as a result of that appeal, SVW’s amended final antidumping duty margin was recalculated from 6.91

to 5.51 percent ad valorem. SVW appealed the CIT’s judgment to the Federal Circuit, but the parties ultimately

agreed to dismiss the appeal. ***. See, e.g., CR at I-1 n.5, I-3 to I-4; PR at I-1 n.5, I-2 to I-3; CR/PR at Table I-3. 

As a result of two administrative reviews of its imports for the periods August 11, 2003 to September 4, 2004 and

October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005, SVW obtained de minimis and zero antidumping duty margins, respectively. 

See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-3.

 8

 See, e.g., 73 Fed. Reg. 31507 (June 2, 2008).

 9

 Commissioner Lane found that the respondent interested party group responses of China and Japan were

adequate, and Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert found that the respondent interested party group response of Japan

was adequate. See, e.g., CR/PR at App. A.

 10 See, e.g., CR at I-1 n.4; PR at I-1 n.4; CR/PR at App. A.

 11 The scopes of those investigations were broader than the scope of the orders in the instant reviews.

4

affirmative present material injury determinations regarding subject imports from China and Korea.5

Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on imports from Japan on July 2, 2003, and antidumping

duty orders on imports from China and Korea on October 1, 2003.6

SVW filed a summons with the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) to appeal the

Commission’s final injury determination but the CIT summarily dismissed the appeal for failure to file a

complaint. No other party appealed the Commission’s final original injury determinations.7

Current Five-Year Reviews. The Commission instituted these five-year reviews on June 2, 2008.8

The Commission received a joint response to the notice of institution filed by domestic producers

Celanese and DuPont, the petitioners in the original investigations, in support of continuing the orders. 

Domestic producer Solutia Inc. (“Solutia”) filed a separate response to the notice of institution in support

of revoking the orders. Four additional responses in support of revocation were filed by the following

respondent interested parties: DC Chemical Co., Ltd., the only known producer of PVA in Korea; Japan

VAM & Poval Co. Ltd. (“JVP”), a producer of subject merchandise in Japan; and Anhui Wanwei

Updated High-Tech Material Industry Co. Ltd. (“Anhui Wanwei”) and Hunan Xiang Wei Co., Ltd.

(“Hunan Xiangwei”), two producers of subject merchandise in China.

On September 5, 2008, the Commission found that the domestic interested party group response

to its notice of institution was adequate, as was the respondent interested party group response of Korea. 

The Commission found that the respondent interested party group responses of China and Japan were

inadequate.9

 The Commission conducted full reviews of all orders to promote administrative efficiency.10

Other Investigations and Reviews. The Commission has conducted two other PVA

investigations.11 On March 9, 1995, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (“Air Products”), Celanese’s
 12 Celanese acquired the PVA business of Air Products in September 2000. See, e.g., CR at I-22; PR at I-16.

 13 See Polyvinyl Alcohol from China, Japan, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-726, 727, and 729 (Final), USITC

Pub. 2960 (May 1996). In the preliminary phase of the case, the Commission found that subject imports from Korea

were negligible, so the investigation regarding Korea was terminated.

 14 See, e.g., 61 Fed. Reg. 24286 (May 14, 1996).

 15 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-2.

 16 See, e.g., Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan, Inv. No. 731-TA-1088 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3732 (Apr. 2007). 

The Commission majority’s opinion reflected the views of Vice Chairman Pearson, Commissioner Okun, and

Commissioner Lane. Then-Commissioners Koplan and Miller reached an affirmative determination and filed

dissenting views. Then-Commissioner Hillman did not participate in the investigations.

 17 See Celanese v. United States, Slip Op. 07-16, 29 Int’l Trade Rep. 1328 (Ct. Int’l Trade Jan. 29, 2007).

 18 Not having been Commissioners in the fall of 2004, these Commissioners reviewed the record de novo.

 19 See, e.g., Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan, Inv. No. 731-TA-1088 (Prelim.) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3920 (Apr.

2007).

 20 See Celanese v. United States, Slip Op. 08-125 (Ct. Int’l Trade Nov. 19, 2008).

 21 Briefing before the Federal Circuit will take place in the first half of 2009. See, e.g., CR at I-10; PR at I-7. 

Because of the procedural posture, the legally operative determination is still the Commission’s original negative

preliminary determination. Thus, Commerce has not conducted its investigation, or issued any preliminary

determination, and there has been no suspension of liquidation on imports of PVA from Taiwan.

5

corporate predecessor,12 filed antidumping duty petitions regarding imports from China, Japan, Korea,

and Taiwan. In May 1996, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was

threatened with material injury by reason of less-than-fair-value imports from China, Japan, and Taiwan.13

Commerce imposed antidumping duty orders on those imports in May 1996.14 In April 2001, Commerce

initiated five-year reviews, but it revoked the orders in May 2001 due to a lack of participation by

domestic producers.15

Separately, the Commission began an investigation of PVA from Taiwan on September 4, 2004,

in response to a petition filed by Celanese that was opposed by DuPont. On October 21, 2004, the

Commission determined by a vote of three to two, with one Commissioner not participating, that there

was no reasonable indication that an industry in the United States was materially injured or threatened

with material injury by reason of imports from Taiwan.16 On November 24, 2004, Celanese appealed the

negative preliminary determination with respect to Taiwan to the CIT. On January 29, 2007, the Court

issued a decision affirming the negative preliminary determination in part and remanding it in part.17 In a

remand determination issued on April 30, 2007, the Commission majority consisting of Chairman

Shara L. Aranoff, Commissioner Irving A. Williamson, and Commissioner Pinkert found a reasonable

indication that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of subject imports from

Taiwan.18 Vice Chairman Pearson, Commissioner Okun, and Commissioner Lane again made a negative

preliminary determination and filed dissenting remand views.19 On November 19, 2008, the CIT affirmed

the affirmative preliminary determination on remand.20 On January 16, 2009, DuPont and Taiwan

producer Chang Chun Petrochemical Co., Ltd. (“Chang Chun”) appealed the CIT’s judgment and order to

the Federal Circuit.21
 22 The Commission rejected as untimely a request by Solutia to hold a portion of its hearing in these reviews in

camera. Nonetheless, the Commission decided sua sponte to conduct a portion of its hearing in camera in order to

address certain matters that could not otherwise be discussed in a public forum due to confidentiality of the

underlying data. See, e.g., 74 Fed. Reg. 5181 (Jan. 29, 2009). Citations herein to the public portion of the hearing

transcript refer to “Hearing Tr. (public)” whereas citations to the confidential portion of the hearing transcript refer

to “Hearing Tr. (confidential).”

 23 See, e.g., CR at I-12; PR at I-9.

 24 See, e.g., CR at I-12 to I-13; PR at I-9.

 25 See, e.g., CR at I-5 at n.15, I-13; PR at I-3 at n.15, I-9.

 26 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 27 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); see, e.g., Cleo, Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003).

 29 See, e.g., CR at I-15 to I-16; PR at I-11. In the original investigations, the domestic industry did not produce

any of the fifteen PVA products specifically excluded from the scope, see, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 6 & n.20, and in

these reviews, Commission staff verified that the domestic industry continues to produce no commercially

significant quantities of the excluded products. See, e.g., CR at I-21 & n.40; PR at I-14 & n.40 (indicating that ***

produced *** pounds of PVA products outside the scope *** and that ***).

6

Data Coverage: Celanese, DuPont and Solutia are the only interested parties that submitted

briefs and participated in the hearing in these reviews.22 All three submitted questionnaire responses, and

they account for all known U.S. production during the original investigations and the current reviews.23

U.S. import data relied upon in these reviews are based on Commerce’s official import statistics

and the questionnaire responses or other submissions of thirteen importers of PVA that are believed to

have accounted for U.S. imports of subject PVA from China, Japan, and Korea, as well as the majority of

PVA corresponding to the scope that was imported from non-subject sources, most notably Taiwan.24

Data on the foreign industries in the subject countries are based on questionnaire responses of three

producers: one producer that accounts for *** of PVA production in China and *** exports from China

to the United States ***; one of four known producers in Japan that accounts for *** percent of PVA

production in that country; and one producer that accounts for all known production in Korea.25

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

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

domestic like product” and the “industry.”26 The Tariff Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product

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

an investigation under this subtitle.”27 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the

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

record indicates any reason to revisit that definition.28

Commerce defined the scope of the orders under review as all PVA “hydrolyzed in excess of 80

percent, whether or not mixed or diluted with commercial levels of defoamer or boric acid.” Commerce

also specifically excluded fifteen forms of PVA from the scope of the orders.29
 30 The degree of hydrolysis is determined by the percentage of acetate groups in the polyvinyl acetate feedstock

that are replaced by hydroxyl groups in the finished PVA. For example, fully hydrolyzed PVA has a replacement

percentage in excess of 98 percent. See, e.g., CR at I-16; PR at I-12. The degree of hydrolysis affects a variety of

PVA properties, such as solution interfacial tensions, compatibility, reaction kinetics, rheology, and water solubility. 

See, e.g., CR at I-17; PR at I-12. According to petitioners in the original investigations, the degree of hydrolysis is

commonly denoted as “super” (more than 99 percent hydrolyzed), “fully” (98 to 99 percent hydrolyzed),

“intermediate” (90 to 98 percent hydrolyzed), and “partial” (85-89 percent hydrolyzed), but these definitions can

vary somewhat within the industry. See, e.g., CR at I-18 & n.29; PR at I-12 to I-13 & n.29.

 31 The viscosity (resistance to shear stress or flow) of an aqueous solution of PVA increases as the molecular

weight of the PVA increases. See, e.g., CR at I-16; PR at I-12.

 32 The molecular weight is determined by the average length of the polymer chain in the finished product in terms

of the monomer units. Low-viscosity grades tend to have PVA chain lengths as low as 300 monomer units, with

average molecular weights around 45,000 to 55,000 unified atomic mass units (u), whereas high-viscosity, fully

hydrolyzed grades have PVA chain lengths up to 3,500 monomer units and average molecular weights around

200,000 to 225,000 u. See, e.g., CR at I-16 to I-17; PR at I-12.

 33 For example, PVA of 88 percent hydrolysis is soluble in both cold and hot water, whereas 98 percent

hydrolyzed PVA may be soluble only in hot water. All other characteristics being equal, the higher the hydrolysis,

the lower the solubility. By altering certain product characteristics, however, solubility can be changed. All

standard grades of PVA, regardless of hydrolysis, must be “cooked” or put through a “saponification” process (in

which an ester is heated with aqueous alkali to form an alcohol and the sodium salt of the acid corresponding to the

ester) to achieve complete solubility. At the end of the saponification process, PVA is a hard solid suitable for

grinding into granular or powdered form. See, e.g., CR at I-17; PR at I-12.

 34 Acetic acid produced as a by-product of the process can either be recycled to produce VAM or sold in the

acetic acid market. Given the need for a high volume of acetic acid in the production of VAM, producers generally

return the by-product to their own production process rather than sell it on the market. See, e.g., CR at I-19; PR at I13.

 35 See, e.g., CR at I-19; PR at I-13.

 36 See, e.g., CR at I-17; PR at I-12.

7

A. Product Description

PVA is a water-soluble synthetic polymer, usually sold as a white granular solid or in powdered

form. PVA can be categorized on the basis of the degree of hydrolysis,30 the viscosity of an aqueous

solution,31 and the average molecular weight of the finished product.32 For most applications, PVA is

dissolved in an aqueous solution. Its solubility behavior in water depends on several factors including

degree of polymerization, degree of hydrolysis, drying temperature, particle size, and molecular weight.33

PVA is generally manufactured by first polymerizing vinyl acetate monomer (“VAM”) into

polyvinyl acetate and then hydrolyzing the acetate groups with methanol in the presence of anhydrous

sodium methylate or aqueous sodium hydroxide at moderate temperatures and pressures.34 This is a

continuous process that produces PVA hydrolyzed in excess of 80 percent.35

In the United States, PVA is captively consumed or sold to end users primarily as an intermediate

in the production of PVB, which is a plastic laminate used as an adhesive between panes of automotive

safety glass or load-resistant architectural glass.36 PVA is also sold to end users (and occasionally to

distributors) for use in the textile and paper industries in sizing formulations; as a binder in adhesive and

soil binding formulations; and as an emulsion or polymerization aid in colloidal suspensions, water-
 37 See, e.g., CR at I-17; PR at I-12; CR/PR at Table II-1.

 38 See, e.g., CR at I-17 to I-18; PR at I-12. For example, in adhesive applications that require water-resistance, a

fully hydrolyzed grade of PVA is used since higher hydrolysis levels are more water-resistant. In adhesive

applications that do not require water-resistance, however, a partially hydrolyzed PVA may be used. Similarly,

paper manufacturers select a specific grade of PVA depending on the property required for the paper. Grease and

water resistance, ink receptivity, and other components of the sizing solution determine grade selection. In the

textile market, where PVA is used as warp sizing for yarns to prevent breakage during weaving, various grades of

PVA are selected for use depending on the yarn, machine type, other components of the sizing solution (e.g., starch),

required viscosity, abrasion resistance, and ease of solution removal after fabric weaving. See, e.g., CR at I-18; PR

at I-13.

 39 See, e.g., CR at I-18; PR at I-13.

 40 See, e.g., CR at I-18; PR at I-13.

 41 See, e.g., CR at I-18; PR at I-13.

 42 See, e.g., CR at I-18; PR at I-13.

 43 See, e.g., CR at I-18; PR at I-13.

 44 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 5; USITC Pub. 3634 at 6.

 45 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 5-6; USITC Pub. 3634 at 6.

 46 See, e.g., Celanese/DuPont’s Response to the Notice of Institution at 4; Celanese/DuPont’s Prehearing Br. at

22.

8

soluble films, cosmetics, and joint compounds.37 PVA is sold in a variety of standard and specialty grades

that vary according to molecular weight, hydrolysis, and viscosity.38

More than one grade of PVA may be sold to specific end-use markets.39 For example, fully

hydrolyzed PVA can be used in many of the same end uses in which intermediate or partially hydrolyzed

PVA can be used, such as textiles, paper, and adhesives.40 The same grade of PVA is frequently sold for

different commercial uses, and many end users are able to use a wide range of grades.41 Many

applications, however, have evolved using particular grades such that substitution, although possible,

could involve some cost and time to reformulate.42 End users tend to avoid changing the grade of PVA

that they use in their applications because their formulas and process parameters might have to be

adjusted.43

B. Original Determinations

In the original investigations, the Commission considered and rejected an argument that PVA

formulated for use in the production of PVB (“PVB-grade PVA”) should be defined as a separate

domestic like product from the other types of PVA within Commerce’s scope definition.44 Consequently,

the Commission defined one domestic like product, encompassing all domestically produced PVA

meeting the specifications stated in Commerce’s scope definition.45

C. Analysis and Conclusion

Domestic producers/petitioners Celanese and DuPont agree with the Commission’s domestic like

product definition in the original investigations.46 No party takes a different position.

 We define the domestic like product in the same manner as the Commission did in the original

investigations. The record in these reviews indicates no material changes in pertinent facts from the
 47 See, e.g., CR at I-16 to I-21; PR at I-12 to I-14.

 48 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 are applicable to the entire subtitle containing the

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

 49 See, e.g., CR at I-21; PR at I-15.

 50 The Commission also determines whether any producer of the domestic like product should be excluded from

the domestic industry pursuant to section 771(4)(B) of the Act. That provision of the statute 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. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). In its original

determinations, the Commission determined that Solutia was a related party but found that appropriate circumstances

did not exist to exclude it given that its subject imports and purchases of subject imports were minuscule in relation

to its domestic production. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 7; USITC Pub. 3634 at 6 & n.24.

In the current reviews, Solutia reported that it did not import subject merchandise from any of the subject

countries during the period of review and did not have any corporate affiliations with subject foreign producers,

exporters, or importers of subject merchandise. Given these circumstances, there is no basis to find that Solutia is a

related party.

9

original investigations.47 Consequently, we define the domestic like product to encompass all PVA

regardless of grade and coextensive with the scope.

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant industry as the domestic “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.”48

In the original investigations and during the period of review, three producers accounted for all

U.S. PVA production: Celanese, DuPont, and Solutia.49 In the original investigations, based on its

finding of a single domestic like product, the Commission found that the domestic industry consisted of

all domestic PVA producers. In these reviews, based on our definition of the domestic like product, we

define the domestic industry as all U.S. producers of PVA, whether captively consumed or produced for

the commercial market (i.e., Celanese, DuPont, and Solutia).50
 51 Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun note that while they consider the same issues discussed in this

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

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

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

next proceed to consider whether those imports are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like

product. Finally, if based on that analysis they intend to exercise their discretion to cumulate one or more subject

countries, they analyze whether they are precluded from cumulating such imports because the imports from one or

more subject countries, assessed individually, are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic

industry. See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and

Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-873 to 875, 877 to 880, and 882 (Review), USITC Pub. 3933 (Jul. 2007) (Separate and

Dissenting Views of Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun Regarding Cumulation). 

Accord Nucor Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 09-16 at 23-25 (Ct. Int’l Trade Mar. 9, 2009); Nucor Corp. v. United

States, Slip Op. 08-141 at 39-43 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 23, 2008).

 52 As discussed above, in the preliminary phase of the original investigations, Commerce found a de minimis

antidumping duty margin for imports from SVW. Thus, for purposes of its negative material injury determination

regarding imports from Japan in the final phase of the original investigations, the Commission cumulated subject

imports from Japan and Korea but did not cumulate these imports with any imports from China because imports

from SVW were not eligible for cumulation at that time and there was insufficient evidence of overlap with the other

(very limited) imports from China. For purposes of its affirmative threat determination regarding imports from Japan

in the final phase of the original investigations, the Commission exercised its discretion to cumulate imports from

Japan and Korea. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 8-13, 31-32. By the time of its final determinations concerning

imports from China and Korea, imports from SVW were eligible for cumulation since Commerce had issued an

affirmative final antidumping duty determination for those imports in the intervening time. See, e.g., USITC Pub.

3634 at 6-8.

 53 See, e.g., Celanese/DuPont’s Prehearing Br. at 33-34; Celanese/DuPont’s Posthearing Br. at 7-9.

 54 See, e.g., Solutia’s Prehearing Br. at 10-24.

 55 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

10

IV. CUMULATION51

A. Overview

In the original investigations, for purposes of its affirmative present material injury

determinations regarding imports from China and Korea, the Commission cumulated subject imports from

China, Japan, and Korea.52 Celanese and DuPont ask the Commission to exercise its discretion to

cumulate imports from all three subject countries,53 whereas Solutia asks the Commission not to exercise

its discretion to cumulate subject imports from China with other subject imports. Solutia makes no

arguments concerning cumulation of subject imports from Japan and Korea.54

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.55
 56 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i); see also, e.g., Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1370,

1378 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (recognizing the wide latitude the Commission has in selecting the types of factors it

considers relevant in deciding whether to exercise discretion to cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews);

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

States, Slip Op. 08-82 (Aug. 5, 2008).

 57 See 73 Fed. Reg. 31974 (June 5, 2008).

 58 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 59 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I at 887 (1994).

 60 Solutia argues that subject imports from China currently are low, began declining well before the antidumping

duty order was put into place, and dropped from low and stable levels in 2003 to 2006 to even lower levels in 2007

after the Government of China reduced the VAT rebate applicable to PVA exports from 13 to 5 percent. Solutia

further contends that Chinese producers have little to no excess capacity and are focused on their huge and fastgrowing domestic market, the European market where demand far outstrips production, and attractive markets

elsewhere in Asia. Solutia argues that producers in China have little incentive to increase exports to the United

States, and even if they do increase exports, pricing data indicate that it will not be at prices that create an adverse

impact. Solutia points to ***, “Celanese and DuPont cannot credibly argue now that an injurious volume of imports

from China is likely if the orders are terminated.” See, e.g., Solutia’s Prehearing Br. at 12-22; Solutia’s Posthearing

Br. at A-14 to A-22. 

Under the terms of ***. See, e.g., Celanese/DuPont’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. A.

 61 Vice Chairman Pearson finds that subject imports from Korea are likely to have no discernible adverse impact

on the domestic industry in the event of revocation of the order on imports from Korea. As such, he does not join

the subsection herein on Korea. See Separate and Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Pearson Regarding

Cumulation and Regarding No Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury if the Antidumping Duty

Order on Certain PVA from Korea is Revoked.

11

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

governed by section 771(7)(G)(i) of the Act.56 The Commission may exercise its discretion to cumulate,

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

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

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

domestic industry in the event of revocation. The statutory threshold for cumulation is satisfied in these

reviews, because the reviews were initiated on the same day: June 2, 2008.57

B. Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact

The statute precludes cumulation if the Commission finds that subject imports from a country are

likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.58 Neither the statute nor the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) provides

specific guidance on what factors the Commission is to consider in determining that imports “are likely to

have no discernible adverse impact” on the domestic industry.59 With respect to this provision, the

Commission generally considers the likely volume of subject imports and the likely impact of those

imports on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time if the orders are revoked.

Solutia contends that subject imports from China are likely to have no discernible adverse impact

upon revocation of the antidumping duty order on those imports.60 Based on the record, we do not find

that subject imports from China, Japan, or Korea are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the

domestic industry in the event of revocation of the orders covering those imports.61
 62 In 2006 (the most recent year for which estimates are available), the industry in China had a capacity of ***

pounds, and total production of PVA in China reached *** pounds. See, e.g., CR at IV-14 to IV-15; PR at IV-8.

 63 In the original investigations the Commission received a questionnaire response from only one Chinese

producer, SVW. See, e.g., CR at IV-14; PR at IV-8. SVW accounted for *** exports to the United States from

China. See, e.g., CR at IV-14 nn.22-23; PR at IV-8 nn.22-23. In these reviews, only SVW responded to the

Commission’s questionnaire. See, e.g., CR at IV-14; PR at IV-8. As one of approximately 14 PVA producers in

China, SVW accounts for approximately *** of Chinese PVA production. The four major producers in China

reportedly consist of ***. See, e.g., CR at I-13, IV-14, IV-15; PR at I-9, IV-8, IV-9. SVW’s capacity *** during the

period *** pounds, though its production *** from *** pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in 2007. See, e.g., CR/PR at

Table IV-8. During the period examined in these reviews, SVW’s production peaked in *** pounds. See, e.g.,

CR/PR at Table IV-8. SVW’s capacity utilization ***. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-8.

 64 According to industry publications, China became a net exporter of PVA during the period examined in these

reviews. See, e.g., CR at IV-15; PR at IV-8 to IV-9 (citing Chemical Economics Handbook and Global Trade

Atlas). China’s status as a net importer/exporter of PVA fluctuated in recent years, consistent with China’s need for

imports of PVB-grade PVA. See, e.g., CR at IV-15, n.26; PR at IV-9, n.26.

 65 During the period examined in the original investigations, imports of subject merchandise from China dropped

from a high in 2000 of 19.6 million pounds to 13.3 million pounds in 2001 and 13.4 million pounds in 2002. See,

e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1. *** of these imports were produced by SVW. See, e.g., CR at IV-14; PR at IV-8. 

Subsequent to imposition of the order, Commerce determined that SVW was importing at fair value in two

successive administrative reviews, but Commerce has not conducted a third administrative review of SVW’s

imports. SVW otherwise remains subject to the antidumping duty order on imports of PVA from China. See, e.g.,

CR/PR at Table I-3. During the period examined in these reviews, subject imports from China began at 5.9 million

pounds in 2003, peaked at 6.7 million pounds in 2006, and fell to 4.5 million pounds in 2007. See, e.g., CR/PR at

Table I-1. Data for interim 2008 shows a drop to 1.3 million pounds as compared to 4.3 million pounds for the same

period in 2007. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-1.

 66 In 45 price comparisons during the original investigations, imports from China undersold the U.S. product in all

but 4 comparisons. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-10.

 67 During the period examined in these reviews, subject imports from China undersold the U.S. product in 40 out

of 90 comparisons. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-9.

 68 In the period examined in the original investigations, imports of subject merchandise from Japan into the

United States rose from *** pounds in 2000 to *** pounds in 2002. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1. After imposition

of the antidumping duty order on imports from Japan in July 2003, imports from Japan declined irregularly from ***

pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in 2007. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1. For the interim period of 2008, imports were

*** pounds compared to *** for the same period in 2007. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-8. 

 69 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-11; CR at IV-22 to IV-23; PR at IV-12.

12

China: Given the large PVA production and large unused capacity in China,62 the *** for SVW

(the only producer in China that submitted a complete questionnaire response in these reviews),63 the

large quantity of PVA exported from China during the review period,64 the consistent presence in the U.S.

market of subject imports from China in the original investigations and during the period of review,65 the

prevalence of underselling by subject imports of the domestic like product in the original investigations,66

and evidence of additional underselling by subject imports from China after imposition of the

antidumping duty order on these imports,67 we do not find that imports from China would likely have no

discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the antidumping duty order on PVA from China

were revoked.

Japan: The volume of subject imports from Japan rose rapidly during the original

investigations.68 As discussed below, the PVA industry in Japan has a large production capacity,69 its
 70 Between 2003 and 2006 total Japanese production of PVA increased from *** pounds to *** pounds. See,

e.g., CR at IV-23; PR at IV-12.

 71 CR at IV-22 to IV-23; PR at IV-12.

 72 See, e.g., CR at I-14 to I-15; PR at I-10 (regarding antidumping duties distributed under the Continued

Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”)); CR/PR at Table IV-3 (imports from Japan of products

excluded from the scope of the orders).

 73 See, e.g., CR at Table V-10. During the original investigations, imports from Japan split evenly with 3

instances of overselling and 3 instances of underselling. During the period examined in these reviews, 2 instances of

underselling and no instances of overselling were reported. See, e.g., CR at Table V-9.

 74 Subject imports from Korea increased from 2.6 million pounds in 2000 to 3.8 million pounds in 2001 and 4.1

million pounds in 2002. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1. This represented an increase in Korea’s share of total U.S.

imports (based on quantity) from *** percent to *** percent. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1. In ***, DC Chemical

reported exporting *** pounds of PVA from Korea to the United States, but since then its reported exports were ***. 

See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-16.

 75 See, e.g., CR at IV-30 to IV-31; PR at IV-15.

 76 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-16. As recently as 2002, however, DC Chemical reported producing *** pounds. 

See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-15.

 77 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-16.

 78 See, e.g., CR at IV-30 & n.53; PR at IV-15 & n.53 (also citing Global Trade Atlas).

 79 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-16.

 80 During the original investigations, there were 10 instances of underselling and 4 instances of overselling by

subject imports from Korea. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-10. There are no price comparisons for imports from

Korea during the period examined in these reviews. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-9.

13

production has grown since the antidumping duty order was imposed,70 and it is export-oriented.71 After

imposition of the antidumping duty order, imports from Japan continued to supply the U.S. market, with

importers either paying large antidumping duties or importing products that were specifically excluded

from the scope of the orders.72 In both the original investigations and in these reviews there are limited

pricing comparisons for PVA from Japan on the record, but there was some evidence of underselling in

both time periods.73 For these reasons, we do not find that revocation of the order on imports from Japan

would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.

Korea: During the period examined in the original investigations, the volume of subject imports

from Korea rose rapidly, but after imposition of the antidumping duty order on imports from Korea in

October 2003, such imports largely disappeared from the U.S. market.74 DC Chemical, the only known

producer of PVA in Korea, provided data to the Commission in the original investigations and in these

reviews.75 DC Chemical’s reported PVA capacity *** the period of review at *** pounds,76 but its

capacity utilization fluctuated from a period low of *** percent in 2005 to a period high of *** percent in

interim 2008.77 An industry publication reports that Korea is a net exporter of PVA,78 and exports have

*** accounted for *** percent of DC Chemical’s total shipments since 2003.79 Subject imports from

Korea generally undersold the domestic like product in the U.S. market.80 For these reasons, we do not

find that PVA imports from Korea would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic

industry.
 81 The four factors generally considered by the Commission in assessing whether imports compete with each

other and with the domestic like product are as follows: (1) the degree of fungibility between the imports from

different countries and between imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific customer

requirements and other quality related questions; (2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographical

markets of imports from different countries and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common or similar

channels of distribution for imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4) whether the

imports are simultaneously present in the market. See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50

(Ct. Int’l Trade 1989).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 84 Compare, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 8-13 with, e.g., USITC Pub. 3634 at 6-8. As noted above, imports from

SVW (which accounted for the bulk of imports from China at the time of the original investigations) were not

eligible for cumulation at the time of the Japan determination but were by the time of the later determinations

concerning subject imports from China and Korea.

 85 See, e.g., Celanese/Dupont Prehearing Br. at 33.

 86 Solutia Prehearing Br. at 12.

 87 Commissioner Lane notes that, with respect to fungibility, her analysis does not require such similarity of

products that a perfectly symmetrical fungibility is required and that this factor would be better described as an

analysis of whether subject imports from each country and the domestic like product could be substituted for each

other. See Separate Views of Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane, Certain Lightweight Thermal Paper from China,

Germany, and Korea, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-451 and 731-TA-1126-1128 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3964 at 32-33 (Nov.

2007).

14

C. Likelihood of a Reasonable Overlap of Competition

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

determining whether the imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.81 Only a

“reasonable overlap” of competition is required.82 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether

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

from the U.S. market.83

In the original investigations, the Commission found a reasonable overlap of competition between

subject imports from Japan and Korea and between those imports and the domestic like product for

purposes of its final determinations concerning subject imports from Japan, and it found a reasonable

overlap of competition among subject imports from China, Japan, and Korea and between those imports

and the domestic like product for purposes of its final determinations concerning subject imports from

China and Korea.84

Celanese and Dupont support cumulation of all subject imports for purposes of these reviews.85

Solutia argues that although there are no differences with respect to three of the four factors, “differences

in end-use applications, and other factors, including quality and product consistency, limit the fungibility

between Chinese PVA ... and U.S. domestic or imported Japanese or Korean PVA.”86

Fungibility.

87 In the original investigations, a majority of producers and importers found that

U.S.-produced product was at least “sometimes” interchangeable with the subject imports from China,
 88 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 10; USITC Pub. 3634 at 8-9.

 89 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3634 at 9.

 90 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table II-4.

 91 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table II-4.

 92 Three purchasers reported that subject imports from China could frequently or sometimes be used

interchangeably and one reported never. Two purchasers reported that subject imports from China are sometimes

interchangeable with subject imports from Korea. Two purchasers reported that subject imports from Japan are

sometimes interchangeable with subject imports from Korea. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table II-4.

 93 Of the 13 purchasers that reported that they require suppliers to be certified for at least some of their purchases,

11 stated that they require pre-qualification for all the PVA they purchase. See, e.g., CR at II-32 to II-34; PR at II-16

to II-17. Among purchasers, *** reported that foreign producers failed to qualify to supply its U.S. plants. See, e.g.,

CR at II-34; PR at II-17. ***, but it has ***. See, e.g., Solutia’s Posthearing Br. at A30 to A31, A33, A55; Solutia’s

Prehearing Br. at 6-7. ***. See, e.g., Solutia’s Posthearing Br. at A30 to A31, A53.

 94 See, e.g., Celanese/DuPont’s Posthearing Br. at II-26 to II-27; CR/PR at Tables IV-8 to IV-10, Tables IV-12 to

IV-14, and Tables IV-16 to IV-18.

 95 See, e.g., CR at IV-8; PR at IV-6; see, e.g., Celanese/DuPont’s Prehearing Br. at 29.

 96 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-4 (showing total shipments by domestic producers of PVA during the period

examined in these reviews of PVA for use in ***).

 97 Subject imports from Japan were minuscule, and none were reported from Korea. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table

IV-4.

 98 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-8 and IV-10 (SVW’s production, home-market sales, exports, and production by

end use), Table IV-9 (exports from China), Tables IV-12 and IV-14 (JVP’s production, home-market sales, exports,

and production by end use), Table IV-13 (exports from Japan), Table IV-16 and IV-18 (DC Chemical’s production,

home-market sales, exports, and production by end use), Table IV-17 (exports from Korea).

 99 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-5.

15

Japan, and Korea and that imports from each of these countries were at least sometimes interchangeable

with each other. The Commission found that data on end uses are particularly pertinent to an analysis of

competition in this industry and that prices for PVA in the U.S. market were a function of the intended

end use of the product, rather than its grade.88 In the original investigations, there was considerable

overlap among subject imports from China, Japan, and Korea, particularly for sales to the textile industry

and for adhesives end uses.89

In these reviews, two of three domestic producers reported that PVA from all four sources

(China, Japan, Korea, and the United States) is always interchangeable, but the third domestic producer

(***) reported that PVA from these sources is never interchangeable with one another.90 U.S. importers

generally reported that PVA from all four sources can be used interchangeably.91 Purchaser responses

were more mixed, although they generally reported imports from all sources as being at least “sometimes”

interchangeable with one another.92 Pre-qualification plays an important role in PVA purchasing.93

Nevertheless, it appears that producers in all subject countries have become qualified for a large range of

products.94

The record continues to reflect the importance of end use in the PVA industry.95 In 2007 and

interim 2008, the domestic industry reported manufacturing PVA for *** end uses.96 In the same period,

subject imports from China were sold *** end-use applications.97 At the same time, producers in the

subject countries produced a wide variety of PVA products for sale to their home and global markets

during the period of review.98 There was also overlap in terms of hydrolysis levels both at the time of the

original investigations and during the period examined in the current reviews.99
 100 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3634 at 9.

 101 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3634 at 9.

 102 See, e.g., CR at IV-11; PR at IV-7.

 103 See, e.g., CR at IV-11; PR at IV-7.

 104 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3634 at 10; Original Views (Japan) at 16.

 105 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3634 at 10.

 106 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table II-1.

 107 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table II-1.

 108 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 109 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 110 See, e.g., CR at IV-12; PR at IV-7.

16

Geographic Overlap. In the original investigations, imports from China and Korea entered

principally through eastern and western ports, and imports from Japan entered through ports in all

geographic areas.100 During the original investigations, Celanese and DuPont made nationwide sales,101

and they still make nationwide sales.102 When in the market during the period of review, subject imports

entered through ports in the South and Southwest. Imports from China were primarily through

Charleston, SC, imports from Japan were concentrated in Houston-Galveston, TX, and imports from

Korea came through Los Angeles, CA, Charleston, SC, and Savannah, GA.103

Channels of Distribution. In the original investigations, a large majority of the PVA sold in the

United States, whether imported or domestically produced, was sold to end users, although a large portion

of domestically produced PVA (*** percent in 2002) was internally transferred.104 At that time, subject

imports (regardless of source) were generally sold directly to end users.105 At the beginning of the period

of review, imports from Japan were mostly sold through distributors, but by 2005, all or nearly all imports

from Japan were sold to end users.106 *** imports from China during the period of review were to end

users, as were *** of U.S. shipments during the period of review.107

Simultaneous Presence in Market. During the original investigations, imports from all three

subject countries and the domestic like product were in the U.S. market in all three years for which data

were collected.108 After imposition of the orders, subject imports from Japan and Korea were limited.109

Imports from China did not leave the market, however, with shipments in 66 of the 69 months between

January 2003 and September 2008.110

Analysis. The record indicates that the criteria for determining a likely reasonable overlap in

competition are satisfied. U.S.-produced PVA and subject imports from all countries generally are

fungible, are primarily shipped through the same channels of distribution, and overlap geographically. 

Though imports from Korea and Japan were not simultaneously present in the U.S. market throughout

much of the period of review, imports from all three countries were present in significant volumes during

the original investigations, were sold for overlapping end-use applications at that time, and would likely

all be present in the market for overlapping end-use applications if the orders were revoked. We therefore

find that there would likely be a reasonable overlap in competition between subject imports from each

country and the domestic like product as well as between subject imports should the orders under review

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

domestic industry if the orders were revoked, and find that such imports would be likely to compete with each other

and with the domestic like product in the U.S. market, they cumulate such imports unless there is a condition or

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

limits competition such that cumulation is not warranted.

Based on the record in these reviews, they find that there is no such condition or propensity with respect to

the subject imports. Therefore, they see no basis for exercising their discretion not to cumulate subject imports from

China, Korea, and Japan, and they have cumulated them in these reviews.

 112 See, e.g., Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 475 F. Supp. 2d at 1378 (recognizing the wide latitude the Commission

has in selecting the type of factors it considers relevant in deciding whether to exercise discretion to cumulate

subject imports in five-year reviews); Nucor v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 2d at 1337-38; United States Steel, Slip

Op. 08-82.

 113 Vice Chairman Pearson finds that subject imports from Korea are likely to have no discernible adverse impact

on the domestic industry in the event of revocation of the order on imports from Korea. As such, he does not

exercise his discretion to cumulate imports from Korea with other subject imports, although he does exercise his

discretion to cumulate subject imports from China with subject imports from Japan. See Separate and Dissenting

Views of Vice Chairman Pearson Regarding Cumulation and Regarding No Likelihood of Continuation or

Recurrence of Material Injury if the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain PVA from Korea is Revoked.

 114 Except as otherwise noted, Vice Chairman Pearson joins in the following discussion, although in his analysis

he only cumulates subject imports from China and Japan.

 115 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

17

D. Other Considerations111

In determining whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate the subject imports, we assess

whether the subject imports from China, Japan, and Korea are likely to compete under similar or different

conditions in the U.S. market after revocation of the orders.112 No party has asserted and we do not find

any significant differences in likely conditions of competition among imports from China, Japan, and

Korea. We accordingly exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from China, Japan, and

Korea.113

V. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS ON CERTAIN PVA FROM CHINA, JAPAN,

AND KOREA ARE REVOKED

For the reasons stated below, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on

imports of subject merchandise from China, Japan, and Korea would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry producing PVA within a reasonably foreseeable

time.114

A. Legal Standards

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

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

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

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

material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”115 The SAA states that “under the likelihood

standard, the Commission will engage in a counterfactual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the
 116 SAA at 883-84. The SAA states that “{t}he likelihood of injury standard applies regardless of the nature of

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

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

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

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

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

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

SAA at 884.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

addresses this issue. 

 121 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

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

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

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

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

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

 123 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

18

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

proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”116 Thus, the

likelihood standard is prospective in nature.117 The CIT has found that “likely,” as used in the five-year

review provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year

reviews.118 119 120

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

may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”121 According to

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

‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”122

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

antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. 

The statute provides that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of

imports of the subject merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended

investigation is terminated.”123 It directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury

determination, whether any improvement in the state of the industry is related to the order or the

suspension agreement under review, whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are
 124 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). Commerce has not made duty absorption findings with respect to any of the orders

under review. See, e.g., CR at I-13 at n.20; PR at I-9 at n.20.

 125 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

 126 See, e.g., CR at I-12 to I-13; PR at I-9.

 127 See, e.g., CR at I-13, IV-14, and IV-22; PR at I-9, IV-8, IV-12.

 128 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

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

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

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

19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i). The verification requirements in 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i) are applicable only to Commerce. See

Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“the ITC correctly

responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification procedures for the evidence before

it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of Commission investigations.”).

 129 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 130 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

19

revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty

absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).124 The statute further provides that the presence or

absence of any factor that the Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive

guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination.125

As stated above, the Commission has relatively complete data coverage for the domestic industry

and received a complete foreign producer questionnaire response from the only known subject producer

in Korea. U.S. import data are based on Commerce’s official import statistics and the questionnaire

responses or other submissions of thirteen importers of PVA that are believed to have accounted for U.S.

imports of subject PVA from China, Japan, and Korea, as well as the large majority of PVA

corresponding to the scope that was imported from non-subject sources, most notably Taiwan.126 On the

other hand, the Commission received a complete foreign producer questionnaire response from only one

of the subject producers in China and only one of four subject producers in Japan.127 We have relied on

the facts otherwise available when appropriate in these reviews, which consist primarily of information

from the original investigations, information submitted in these reviews, and information available from

published sources.128 129

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

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

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

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”130
 131 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 15; USITC Pub. 3634 at 10.

 132 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 15; USITC Pub. 3634 at 10.

 133 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 15-16; USITC Pub. 3634 at 10.

 134 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 16; USITC Pub. 3634 at 10; Original Views (Japan) at 24.

 135 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 16; USITC Pub. 3634 at 10; Original Views (Japan) at 24-25.

 136 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 16; USITC Pub. 3634 at 10. Celanese acquired the PVA business – including

U.S. production facilities – of former producer Air Products in September 2000. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 16;

USITC Pub. 3634 at 10.

 137 Specifically, the Commission determined that the threshold criterion was met because domestic producers

internally transferred significant production of the domestic like product for captive consumption and sold

significant production of the domestic like product in the commercial market. Internal transfers accounted for ***

percent of the reported volume of U.S. producers’ domestic shipments of PVA in 2002 and commercial market sales

accounted for the remaining *** percent. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 14; Original Views (Japan) at 21.

The Commission also determined that the first statutory criterion, whether any of the domestic like product

that is transferred internally for further processing is in fact sold on the commercial market, was met. The record

indicated that *** internal transfers by *** were used in the production of PVB and that *** entered the commercial

market. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 14; Original Views (Japan) at 21.

In applying the second statutory criterion, the Commission considered whether the domestic like product

was the predominant material input into a downstream product by reference to its share of the raw material cost of

the downstream product. The record indicated that *** of the PVA *** was used to produce PVB products and that

PVA accounted for ***, of the total raw material costs for PVB, an amount that was unquestionably larger than any

other individual input. In those circumstances, the Commission concluded that the second criterion was satisfied. 

See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 14-15; Original Views (Japan) at 21-22.

In applying the third statutory criterion, the Commission considered whether the commercial market

purchaser was generally using the domestic like product to produce the same downstream article or articles as the

integrated domestic producer. The record indicated that *** percent of U.S. commercial shipments of PVA in 2002

were used to produce PVB. The Commission accordingly concluded that the third statutory criterion was satisfied. 

See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 15; Original Views (Japan) at 23.

20

1. Original Determinations

The Commission found several conditions of competition relevant to its inquiry in its original

determinations. First, market participants commonly perceived the PVA market by reference to the

different applications for which it is sold.131 PVB was the highest-volume application in the United States

at that time, and this application was then supplied primarily by captive consumption.132 The two next

largest applications in the United States in 2002, which were supplied exclusively by sales in the

commercial market, were textiles and adhesives/emulsifiers.133

Apparent U.S. consumption of PVA, whether measured in terms of the commercial market or the

total market, declined from 2000 to 2001 and increased from 2001 to 2002, although the 2002 level was

below that of 2000.134 Between 2000 and 2002, there was a significant decline in demand in the U.S.

market for PVA for textile uses because of contraction within the U.S. textile industry, but demand for

PVB-grade PVA remained strong.135

At the time of the original investigations, only two of the three domestic producers (DuPont and

Celanese) produced PVA for the commercial market.136 The Commission concluded that all elements of

the statutory captive production provision (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iv)) were met.137 Therefore, the

Commission focused primarily on the commercial market for the domestic like product in determining
 138 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 15; USITC Pub. 3634 at 10.

 139 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 17; USITC Pub. 3634 at 10.

 140 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 17; Original Views (China/Korea) at 16.

 141 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3634 at 10; Original Views (China/Korea) at 16-17.

 142 The Commission observed that manufacturers of subject PVA in subject countries likewise maintained

capacity *** in excess of the sum of their internal consumption and home market shipments. See, e.g., USITC Pub.

3604 at n.83.

 143 See, e.g., Celanese/DuPont’s Prehearing Br. at 29.

 144 See, e.g., CR at II-1; PR at II-1; CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 145 See, e.g., CR at II-1; PR at II-1; CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 146 See, e.g., CR at II-1; PR at II-1; CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 147 See, e.g., CR at II-26 to II-27; PR at II-13 to II-14; Celanese/DuPont’s Prehearing Br. at 30-31.

 148 See, e.g., CR at II-24 to II-25; PR at II-12 to II-13.

 149 See, e.g., CR at II-1; PR at II-1.

21

market share and the factors affecting financial performance, although it also analyzed these factors with

respect to the whole market.138

At the time of the original investigations, the U.S. PVA market was supplied principally by the

domestic industry.139 In 2002, domestic producers accounted for *** percent of U.S. commercial market

consumption and *** percent of total apparent U.S. consumption, measured by quantity.140 The next

largest source of supply to the U.S. market in 2002 was subject imports from China, Japan, and Korea,

which accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. commercial market consumption and *** percent of

total apparent U.S. consumption that year.141 The Commission noted that the domestic industry’s capacity

in 2002 was *** greater than the largest amount of apparent U.S. consumption observed at any point

between 2000 and 2002.142

2. Current Reviews

In these reviews, we have considered a number of likely conditions of competition in the event

the antidumping duty orders regarding imports of PVA from China, Japan, and Korea are revoked.

a. Demand in the U.S. Market

PVA is used in a wide variety of end-use applications, and participants still view the PVA market

by reference to the applications for which PVA is sold.143 PVB continues to be by far the largest end-use

application.144 Other high-volume end-use applications for PVA include textiles, paper (coated

paperboard), adhesives, and emulsion polymerization (adhesives, coatings, and engineered fabrics).145

PVA is also used in the manufacture of a variety of other products including building materials,

pharmaceuticals, ceramics, and film.146 PVA accounts for a small to moderate percentage of the final cost

of the variety of end-use products in which it is an input, although it accounts for a larger share of the cost

to produce certain intermediate products such as textile finishing or adhesive compounds.147

Questionnaire respondents reported few or no substitutes for PVA, and those reporting substitutes

generally identified products that could substitute for PVA only in particular end-use applications.148

 Solutia and DuPont both internally consume PVA for the production of PVB, and Solutia also

purchases PVB-grade PVA.149 Although there is only one commercial-market purchaser of PVB-grade
 150 Of those purchasers providing questionnaire responses in these reviews, *** was the largest, accounting for

*** percent of total reported purchases for 2007. See, e.g., CR at II-3; PR at II-3. Other responding purchasers

included *** (*** percent); *** (*** percent); *** (*** percent); and *** (*** percent). See, e.g., CR at II-3 to II4; PR at II-3.

 151 See, e.g., CR at II-1; PR at II-1.

 152 *** reported that demand in the United States had declined, while *** reported that it had increased. See, e.g.,

CR at II-21; PR at II-11; Celanese/DuPont’s Prehearing Br. at 29-30. Four of the eight responding importers

reported that demand had increased, and one indicated that it had fluctuated. See, e.g., CR at II-22; PR at II-12. All

but one of 13 responding purchasers reported that the demand for their final products that incorporate PVA had

changed since January 2003. Of those reporting changes, six reported that demand had increased, four reported that

it had decreased, and two reported that it fluctuated. See, e.g., CR at II-23; PR at II-12.

 153 See, e.g., CR at II-19; PR at II-10.

 154 See, e.g., CR at II-19 to II-20; PR at II-10. In particular, the annual shipment value of U.S. textile production

fell continuously from $22.6 billion in 2003 to $9.3 billion in 2007, or by a total of 58.9 percent. See, e.g., CR at II20; PR at II-10 to II-11; CR/PR at Figure II-1. DuPont reported that since 2003, the U.S. textile industry’s

production declined as major textile manufacturers such as Dan River, West Point Stevens, and Springs either

declared bankruptcy, were sold, or relocated offshore. DuPont also noted similar declines in the U.S. automotive

market in the last five years, and more recently in 2008 the construction and housing industry experienced a

downturn. See, e.g., CR at II-20 at n.35; PR at II-10 to II-11 at n.35. Solutia asserts that demand in the segments of

the U.S. market traditionally served by subject imports is shrinking (i.e., textiles) *** (i.e., adhesives and paper). 

See, e.g., Solutia’s Prehearing Br. at 34-35.

 155 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-8.

 156 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables I-8, C-1.

 157 See, e.g., Solutia’s Prehearing Br. at 32-33.

 158 See, e.g., Solutia’s Prehearing Br. at 33; Solutia’s Posthearing Br. at A-1 to A-2, A-11 to A-13.

 159 See, e.g., Celanese/DuPont’s Prehearing Br. at 32-33; Celanese/DuPont’s Posthearing Br. at II-3 to II-4, II-20

to II-21.

22

PVA,150 the record indicates that the rest of the U.S. PVA market is more fragmented, with most

customers purchasing on average between 100 and 150 tons (200,000 to 300,000 pounds) per year.151

Consistent with the variety of applications in which PVA is used, questionnaire respondents’

characterizations of demand trends since the original investigations varied widely.152 Data on U.S.

consumption of PVB resin indicate an increase from *** pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in 2006.153 In

contrast, the slowing of the general economy and weakness in broad market sectors, such as automobiles,

construction, and textiles, reduced demand for PVA in other end-use applications.154

During the period of review, demand as measured by apparent U.S. consumption (the sum of the

domestic industry’s U.S. shipments and imports from subject and non-subject sources) increased from

*** pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in 2004 and *** pounds in 2005, but then declined to *** pounds in

2006 before increasing somewhat to *** pounds in 2007.155 Apparent U.S. consumption in interim 2008

(*** pounds) was *** percent lower than in interim 2007 (*** pounds).156 

Solutia argues that, notwithstanding a “slight drop” in demand in interim 2008 related to the

recession, U.S. demand will increase in the reasonably foreseeable future due to growth in existing

applications and the development of new applications.157 In terms of the PVB segment of the market,

Solutia contends that the use of PVB film in the manufacture of photovoltaic panels is a new and fastgrowing application and that growth in PVB for use in photovoltaic panels will help offset current

declines in demand for PVB used in automotive and architectural applications.158 Celanese and DuPont

claim that the weight of industry opinion refutes Solutia’s ***.159 Consistent with several questionnaire

responses submitted in these reviews, we find that demand for PVA in the United States is likely to slow
 160 See, e.g., CR at II-19 to II-24; PR at II-10 to II-12; Celanese/DuPont’s Prehearing Br. at 32-33;

Celanese/DuPont’s Posthearing Br. at II-3 to II-4, II-20 to II-21; Hearing Tr. (Open Sess.) at 7-8, 9-10 (Greenwald),

17-19, 25-26 (Purvis), 27-33, 36-37, 38-40, 83-84 (Korte), 84-85 (Greenwald).

 161 In the original investigations, three Japanese producers submitted data (Denki Kagaku Kogyo Kabushiki

Kaisha (“Denki”), JVP, and Kuraray Co., Ltd. (“Kuraray Japan”)). See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-11. In these

reviews, only JVP responded to the Commission’s questionnaires. See, e.g., CR at IV-22; PR at IV-12. Japan has a

fourth producer, The Nippon Synthetic Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (“Nippon”), that did not provide data either in

the original investigations or in these reviews. See, e.g., CR at IV-22 to IV-23. JVP accounts for *** percent of

PVA production in Japan, while Kuraray is reported to be the *** PVA producer in the world, with affiliates in

Germany and Singapore (although the facility in Singapore is a collaborative project with Nippon). See, e.g., CR at

IV-22 to IV-23; PR at IV-12.

 162 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 163 See, e.g., Solutia’s Prehearing Br. at 27; CR at III-6 to III-7; PR at III-3.

 164 See, e.g., CR at I-19; PR at I-13.

 165 ***. See, e.g., CR at I-19; PR at I-13. In interim 2008, the domestic industry’s internal consumption of PVA

for use in PVB accounted for *** percent of its total internal consumption, and the remainder of the domestic

industry’s internal consumption of PVA was for ***. See, e.g., CR at III-8 at n.29; PR at III-4 at n.29.

 166 See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-415

(Review), USITC Pub. 3994 at 18 & n.123 (Apr. 2008).

 167 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-4. 

 168 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-4. 

23

or decline in the reasonably foreseeable future in light of current economic conditions and slowing or

declining demand for specific end-use applications.160

b. Supply in the U.S. Market

Since January 1, 2003, the U.S. market has been supplied by imports from the three subject

countries, non-subject imports, and the domestic industry.

Subject Imports. As discussed above, there are a number of PVA producers in China, and SVW

was ***. There are four known producers of subject merchandise in Japan161 and only one known

producer of subject merchandise in Korea.

Non-subject Imports. Taiwan was the largest source of non-subject imports throughout the period

of review, with non-subject imports from Germany, Singapore, and Spain accounting for considerably

smaller shares.162

Domestic Industry. As discussed above, the domestic industry is comprised of three producers. 

Due to ***. As a result, DuPont ***.163

Solutia internally consumes all of its PVA to produce PVB, and DuPont internally consumed ***

of its production in each year of the period of review to produce PVB.164 Celanese ***.165 Although the

Commission does not apply the captive production provision in five-year reviews, we have considered

significant captive production to be a pertinent condition of competition in other reviews,166 and we do so

here. Although we acknowledge the size of the captive market, we nevertheless focus our analysis in

these reviews on the market as a whole.

Overall, domestic internal consumption of PVA accounted for *** percent of the domestic

industry’s total shipments, by quantity, in interim 2008.167 In interim 2008, *** percent of the domestic

industry’s shipments was exported for commercial sale, and *** percent was exported to related firms.168

The remainder of the domestic industry’s shipments in interim 2008 (*** percent) was to the commercial
 169 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-4.

 170 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 171 See, e.g., CR at II-1, II-3; PR at II-1, II-3.

 172 See, e.g., Solutia’s Prehearing Br. at 36-37.

 173 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-1, Table III-3.

 174 See, e.g., CR at III-5; PR at III-2. In 2007, a reactor failed at Celanese’s acetic acid production unit, which

disrupted supply of acetic acid to its PVA production facility and resulted in a force majeure declaration between

***. Nevertheless, Celanese contends that it was able to recycle its acetic acid back into its VAM and PVA

operations, ***. See, e.g., CR at III-1 to III-2 & n.6; PR at III-1 & n.6. DuPont experienced a force majeure event

in 2008 when Hurricane Ike forced it to idle its La Porte, TX facility for three weeks. See, e.g., CR at III-2; PR at

III-1. Celanese ***. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-1.

 175 See, e.g., Celanese/DuPont’s Prehearing Br. at 27.

 176 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

24

market.169 As a share of the domestic industry’s total U.S. shipments in interim 2008, *** percent was for

PVB end-use applications, *** percent was for textiles, *** percent was for paper, *** percent was for

adhesives, *** percent was for emulsion-polymerization, *** percent was for building materials, ***

percent was for pharmaceuticals, *** percent was for “other” end-use applications, and *** percent was

for unknown end-use applications.170

Solutia is the only purchaser of PVB-grade PVA in the U.S. merchant market and it is ***.171

Thus, its market experience may not be typical of other U.S. purchasers of PVA. Solutia asserts that

major U.S. purchasers of PVA (including itself) had difficulty obtaining adequate supply of PVA from

the domestic industry during the period of review, and Solutia contends that alternate supply sources are

needed, ***.172 In 2005, 2007, and interim 2008, Celanese and DuPont reported prolonged shutdowns

and/or production curtailments as a result of equipment breakdowns.173 At the hearing, Celanese and

DuPont indicated that their production facilities produced all the PVA they could during the periods in

which they experienced the unusual disruptions.174

c. Other Considerations

As was the case during the original investigations, PVA manufacturing is a capital-intensive

business that entails high fixed costs. As a result, producers must maintain relatively high production

rates and achieve profit margins high enough to cover the substantial costs of maintaining plants and

equipment.175

C. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Cumulated Subject Imports Is

Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury

1. Likely Volume of Cumulated Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under review are

revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be

significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.176 In

doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumerated

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

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

(3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than the
 177 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A) to (D).

 178 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3634 at 11-12. In its final determinations concerning subject imports from Japan, the

Commission found that the absolute quantity of cumulated subject imports from Japan and Korea increased rapidly

between 2000 and 2001 and between 2001 and 2002 as did their share of the U.S. market. Notwithstanding this

rapid growth, it found that the presence in the U.S. market of these imports remained small, and their volume relative

to production or consumption in the United States was not at a level that the Commission deemed significant. See,

e.g., USITC Pub. 3404 at 20. The Commission, however, made an affirmative threat determination concerning

subject imports from Japan that it cumulated with imports from Korea. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 32-34.

 179 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables I-1, C-1. Vice Chairman Pearson notes that during the original investigations,

cumulated subject imports from China and Japan were *** pounds in 2000, *** pounds in 2001, and *** pounds in

2002. Cumulated subject imports from China and Japan declined to *** pounds in 2003 and *** pounds in 2004

before increasing somewhat to *** pounds in 2005 and *** pounds in 2006. Because there were no subject imports

from Korea after 2006, there is no difference in the figures calculated for 2007 and the interim periods.

 180 From a period high of *** percent in 2000, these imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption dropped to ***

percent of total apparent U.S. consumption in 2003 and was never higher than *** percent in every subsequent

period as measured by the data available in these reviews. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables I-1, C-1. In terms of the U.S.

commercial market, cumulated subject imports had a higher share of the market during these periods. See, e.g.,

CR/PR at Table C-2 (indicating that from a period high of *** percent in 2003, these imports’ share of the U.S.

commercial market was never higher than *** percent in every subsequent period as measured by the data in these

reviews). The domestic industry increased its share of the total U.S. market during the original investigations from

*** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2001 and *** percent in 2002 and was generally able to increase or maintain

its share of total apparent U.S. consumption after the orders were put into place. As a share of total apparent U.S.

consumption, U.S. shipments of the domestic like product increased from *** percent in 2003 and 2004 to ***

percent in 2005, before leveling off at *** and *** percent in 2006 and 2007, and its share of total apparent U.S.

consumption was *** percent in interim 2008 as compared to *** percent in interim 2007. See, e.g., CR/PR at

Tables I-1, C-1. In terms of the U.S. commercial market, U.S. shipments of the domestic like product held a

relatively stable market share of *** percent in 2003, *** percent in 2004, and *** percent in 2005, before declining

to *** percent in 2006 and *** percent in 2007, and its share was *** percent in interim 2008 as compared to *** in

interim 2007. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2.

Vice Chairman Pearson finds that cumulated subject imports from China and Japan were at a period high of

*** percent in 2000 before declining to *** percent in 2003. With respect to the U.S. open market, cumulated

subject imports from China and Japan were at a period high of *** percent in 2003 and were never higher than ***

percent in every subsequent period.

25

United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the foreign country,

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

products.177

In its final determinations concerning subject imports from China and Korea, the Commission

found that, even absent an overall increase, cumulated subject imports from China, Korea, and Japan

maintained a significant share of the U.S. market, including during the period after demand declined. It

found the volume of cumulated subject imports both absolutely and relative to production and

consumption in the United States to be significant.178

The cumulated quantity of subject imports declined sharply after the antidumping duty orders

were imposed in July 2003 (Japan) and October 2003 (China and Korea). During the original

investigations, cumulated subject imports were *** pounds in 2000, *** pounds in 2001, and *** pounds

in 2002. The imports declined dramatically to *** pounds in 2003 and *** pounds in 2004, and then

increased somewhat to *** pounds in 2005 and *** pounds in 2006. The cumulated volume of subject

imports was *** pounds in 2007 and *** in interim 2008 as compared to *** in interim 2007.179 The

share of total apparent U.S. consumption held by cumulated subject imports followed similar trends.180
 181 We note that the collective excess capacity in the subject countries occurred during a period of higher global

demand than what is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.

 182 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-8.

 183 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-8.

 184 See, e.g., CR at IV-14 to IV-15; PR at IV-8.

 185 See, e.g., CR at IV-15; PR at IV-8.

 186 See, e.g., CR at IV-22 to IV-23; PR at IV-12. Although Kuraray has production facilities in other countries,

imports from Japan supplied the U.S. market alongside imports from Germany and Singapore during the original

investigations and during the period captured by our data in these reviews. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-2. Thus,

the fact that Kuraray can supply the U.S. market via its affiliates in Germany and Singapore does not make it

unlikely that it will also choose to supply the U.S. market from its facilities in Japan.

 187 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 188 See, e.g., CR at IV-23; PR at IV-13.

 189 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-16; see also CR/PR at Table IV-15 (indicating that DC Chemical produced ***

pounds as recently as 2002).

 190 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-8, IV-12, IV-16.

 191 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-6.

26

Thus, the evidence indicates that the orders have had a restraining effect on subject imports from China,

Japan, and Korea.

Collectively, the PVA industries in the subject countries are large and have substantial unused

capacity available.181 Although there are as many as 14 producers in China, only one submitted a

questionnaire response in these reviews. According to its questionnaire response, SVW alone has the

capacity to produce *** pounds of PVA.182 Moreover, SVW produced *** pounds of PVA in 2007 and

reported ***.183 SVW accounted for *** of the imports of subject merchandise from China since 2000.184

Total PVA capacity in China was estimated to be nearly *** pounds in 2006, the most recent year for

which estimates are available, whereas production in that year was estimated to be approximately ***

pounds.185

Only one producer in Japan (JVP) submitted a questionnaire response in these reviews, but there

are reportedly three other PVA producers in Japan, including Kuraray, which is reportedly the largest

PVA producer in the world.186 JVP reported *** production capacity during the period of review from

*** pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in 2007, although it also reported *** its capacity utilization from ***

percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2007.187 Industry publications report that total PVA production in Japan

increased from *** in 2003 to *** in 2006 (the most recent period for which data are available), whereas

total production capacity was estimated to be an even higher *** pounds in 2006.188

Finally, the only known producer in Korea has reported *** a capacity of *** pounds during the

period of review, *** capacity utilization fluctuated from a low of *** percent in *** to a high of ***

percent in ***, which indicates that the company ***.189

*** subject producers also reported end-of-period inventories of PVA that individually exceeded

*** pounds throughout the period of review.190 In contrast, end-of-period inventories of subject PVA in

the United States were more limited.191

Although cumulated imports of subject merchandise declined significantly after imposition of the

antidumping duty orders, producers in these countries would likely be able to increase exports to the

United States, particularly given that producers in China and Japan continued to maintain a presence in

the U.S. market after imposition of the orders. SVW has continued to export and, through its strong
 192 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-6.

 193 See, e.g., CR at I-14 to I-15; PR at I-10 to I-11 (regarding distributions under CDSOA); CR/PR at Table IV-3

(imports from Japan of products excluded from the scope of the orders).

 194 In the original investigations, there was considerable overlap among subject imports from China, Japan, and

Korea, particularly for sales to the textile industry and for adhesives end uses based on shipment data and overlaps in

the pricing data. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3634 at 9. There was also overlap in terms of hydrolysis levels at the time

of the original investigations, with U.S. products and imports from China consisting primarily of PVA with

hydrolysis levels *** percent, imports from Korea and Japan being focused on levels ***, and ***. See, e.g.,

CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 195 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-8 and IV-10 (SVW’s production, home-market sales, exports, and production by

end use), Table IV-9 (exports from China), Tables IV-12 and IV-14 (JVP’s production, home-market sales, exports,

and production by end use), Table IV-13 (exports from Japan), Table IV-16 and IV-18 (DC Chemical’s production,

home-market sales, exports, and production by end use), Table IV-17 (exports from Korea).

 196 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-4 (showing total shipments by domestic producers of PVA during the period

examined in these reviews for use in ***).

 197 Compare, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-10 (showing production of PVA for use in ***) with, e.g., CR/PR at Table

IV-4 (showing imports of subject merchandise from China during the period examined in these reviews for use in

***).

 198 Compare, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-4 (showing *** during the period examined in these reviews) with, e.g.,

Table IV-14 (showing production of PVA for use in ***).

 199 Compare, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-4 with, e.g., Table IV-18. As noted in Table IV-18, DC Chemical *** In

its foreign producer questionnaire response, DC Chemical explained that ***.

 200 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-5.

27

relationship with ***.192 Imports from Japan continued to supply the U.S. market either despite the

antidumping duties or by means of products that were specifically excluded from the scope of the

orders,193 so producers in Japan also have a ready distribution network in the United States to increase

exports in the event of revocation.

Given their substantial and unused production capacity, *** end-of-period inventories, and (at

least for two of the subject countries) current contacts in the U.S. market, we find that producers in the

subject countries have the ability to direct substantial quantities of PVA to the U.S. market should the

antidumping duty orders on PVA from China, Japan, and Korea be revoked.

The Commission’s affirmative determinations in the original investigations were predicated on an

overlap of competition among subject imports and the domestic like product in the U.S. commercial

market, primarily for sales of PVA to the textiles, adhesives, and paper industries, although there were no

imports of PVB-grade PVA.194 Producers in the subject countries produced a wide variety of PVA

products for sale to their home and global markets during the period of review.195 In 2007, the domestic

industry reported manufacturing PVA for *** end uses.196 Chinese producers manufacture PVA for ***

end uses, even though they ***.197 Likewise, although there were *** subject imports from Japan during

the period examined in these reviews, Japanese producers make PVA for ***.198 The Korean producer

makes PVA for *** applications, but it ***.199 In 2007, the domestic industry and producers in all three

subject countries reported producing PVA of a hydrolysis level ***.200 As a result, we find that there will

likely be competition in the U.S. commercial market among subject imports and the domestic like product

in the event the antidumping duty orders are revoked, as there was during the original investigations. 

Furthermore, although the domestic industry’s sales of PVB-grade PVA may have been largely sheltered

from import competition in the original investigations, we do not find that that will likely be the case in

the reasonably foreseeable future.
 201 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-8 (SVW’s exports as a share of its total shipments ranged from *** percent in

interim 2008 to *** percent in 2004), Table IV-9 (exports from China ranged from *** pounds in 2003 to ***

pounds in 2006), Table IV-12 (JVP’s exports as a share of its total shipments ranged from *** percent in 2005 to

*** percent in interim 2007), Table IV-13 (exports from Japan ranged from *** pounds in 2005 to *** pounds in

2007), Table IV-16 (DC Chemical’s exports as a share of its total shipments ranged from *** percent in 2006 to ***

percent in 2003, and as noted above, ***).

 202 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-19 (indicating that U.S. PVA consumption is similar in size to consumption in

Western Europe and Japan but about a third of the size of consumption in China).

 203 See, e.g., CR at IV-42 & n.60; PR at IV-22 & n.60; CR/PR at Tables IV-8 and IV-9 (showing average unit

values for exports from China to various regions); CR/PR at Tables IV-12 and IV-13 (showing average unit values

for exports from Japan to various regions); CR/PR at Tables IV-16 and IV-17 (showing average unit values for

exports from Korea to various regions). Although we are cautious about the use of average unit values, particularly

where there may be differences in product mix, we find that the average unit values of exports from individual

countries to other regions indicate that U.S. prices are at least comparable to those in other markets.

 204 See, e.g., CR at I-26, II-24; CR/PR at App. D.

 205 In 2007, the portion of the U.S. commercial market that was not sold for PVB end-use applications was

equivalent to *** pounds (or *** percent of the U.S. commercial market in 2007). (derived from CR/PR at Table I10; CR at II-3 at n.4). The portion of the domestic industry’s U.S. commercial shipments in 2007 that was not sold

for PVB end-use applications was equivalent to *** pounds (or *** percent of the domestic industry’s U.S.

commercial shipments in 2007). (derived from CR/PR at Table III-4 and CR at II-3 at n.4).

 206 See, e.g., Solutia’s Posthearing Br. at A30 to A31, A33, A53, A55; Solutia’s Prehearing Br. at 6-7; see

generally Celanese/DuPont’s Prehearing Br. at 44-45.

 207 Vice Chairman Pearson does not exercise his discretion to cumulate subject imports from Korea in his

assessment and instead finds that subject import volumes from Korea are not likely to increase to such a volume as

to be significant within a reasonably foreseeable time, were the order against subject imports from Korea to be

revoked. See Separate and Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Pearson Regarding Cumulation and Regarding No

Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury if the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain PVA from

Korea is Revoked.

28

Consistent with the need of PVA producers to maintain high levels of capacity utilization,

producers in China, Japan, and Korea are significant worldwide exporters of PVA, ***.201 The U.S. PVA

market is relatively large compared to other regional markets,202 and its prices are at least comparable with

other global markets.203 Furthermore, questionnaire respondents representing a wide range of PVA end

uses reported their intention to seek imports from the subject countries in the event the orders are

revoked.204 Subject producers have the capacity to and will likely compete against the domestic industry

for sales to customers purchasing the significant percentage of the domestic industry’s production that is

not exported, captively consumed, or sold for PVB end-use applications.205 In addition, ***.206

In light of the above discussion, we conclude that there will likely be a significant increase in

cumulated imports of PVA from the subject countries to the United States, both in absolute terms and

relative to U.S. consumption and production, upon revocation.207 Cumulated subject imports continued to

maintain a significant presence in the U.S. market during the original investigations even at a time of

declining apparent U.S. consumption. The record in these reviews indicates that the current declines in

apparent U.S. consumption would not deter the subject countries from again supplying significant

volumes to the U.S. market.

2. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the orders under review were revoked,

the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject
 208 See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “{c}onsistent with its practice in investigations, in

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

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

SAA at 886.

 209 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3634 at 20.

 210 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3634 at 21.

 211 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3634 at 21.

 212 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3634 at 22.

 213 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3634 at 22-24. In its final determinations concerning subject imports from Japan, the

Commission found that cumulated subject imports from Japan and Korea undersold the domestic like product in 16

of 23 possible comparisons but did not find this underselling significant because the majority of it did not occur until

2002 and most occurred in the last two quarters of 2002. The Commission did not find that the limited volume of

cumulated imports from Japan and Korea had significant depressing or suppressing effects on prices for the domestic

like product. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3404 at 20-23. The Commission, however, made an affirmative threat

determination concerning subject imports from Japan that it cumulated with imports from Korea. See, e.g., USITC

Pub. 3604 at 32-34.

 214 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3634 at 24.

 215 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3634 at 25.

 216 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3634 at 27. 

29

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

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

price of the domestic like product.208

In the original investigations, the Commission found that “price is an important factor purchasers

used in selecting suppliers.”209 It further noted that prices in the U.S. market were based on end-use

application and not grade or physical characteristics.210 Prices for paper applications were the highest,

followed by construction, adhesives/emulsions, and PVB. Textile applications had the lowest prices.211

Based on purchasers’ questionnaires, the Commission found that cumulated subject imports from China,

Japan, and Korea were reasonably good substitutes for the domestic like product.212

Price comparisons in the original investigations focused on four products. Though underselling

was not uniform, it was prevalent across all four pricing products and in each of the three main end-use

applications for which there were data (paper, textiles, and adhesives).213 The Commission concluded that

underselling was widespread and that the underselling margins were significant in each year.214 Further, it

found that by the end of the period domestic producers’ prices for all four products had fallen.215

The Commission examined possible reasons for the price decline. First, there were confirmed

allegations of lost sales that indicated that direct competition from subject imports was a factor. Second,

demand fell over the period examined, which forced domestic producers to reduce prices. Non-subject

imports from Germany and Taiwan may have had an effect, but the Commission found that instances of

underselling by non-subject imports were less frequent and at smaller margins than for imports from

subject countries. The Commission also found that “in 2002 when domestic prices were declining,

cumulated subject import volume was increasing both absolutely and relative to commercial market

consumption and total U.S. consumption, but the volume of non-subject imports was declining.”216

In the original investigations, we found that “cumulated imports from China, Japan, and Korea

are reasonably good substitutes for the domestic like product in applications in which these subject
 217 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3634 at 22.

 218 See, e.g., CR at II-29; PR at II-15.

 219 See, e.g., CR at V-10 to V-11 & n.22; PR at V-6 to V-7 & n.22 (DuPont reported that ***. Celanese reported

that during the review period approximately *** percent of its sales were covered by long-term contracts, but it

anticipated that this percentage ***. *** reported that short-term contract sales accounted for *** percent of its

shipments and the remainder consisted of spot sales. *** reported that *** percent of their sales of PVA from ***

and ***, respectively, were on a spot basis).

 220 See, e.g., CR at V-11 and V-12; V-6 to V-7; Celanese/DuPont’s Posthearing Br. at II-24 to II-25, II-40 to II41, II-48.

 221 See, e.g., CR at V-14 to V-15; PR at V-8 (identifying six pricing products: product 1 (textiles), products 2, 4,

and 5 (adhesive applications), product 3 (paper applications), and product 6 (PVB applications)).

 222 See, e.g., CR at V-15; PR at V-8.

 223 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-9. For product 1, where comparisons are available only for the beginning of the

period, subject imports ***. The product imported from Japan ***, whereas the product imported from China was

***. For product 2, subject imports ***. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-3. For product 3, subject imports ***. See,

e.g., CR/PR at Table V-4. For product 4, there were ***, and subject imports generally *** the domestic industry

for this product. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-5. For product 5, subject imports undersold the domestic like product

in *** of *** possible comparisons. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-6. For product 6, ***. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table

V-7.

 224 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3634 at 27-28.

 225 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-2 to V-7.

30

imports and the domestic like product are used.”217 Consistent with that finding, the record evidence in

these reviews supports a finding of at least moderate substitutability.218

As discussed above, most sales of PVA are made to end users. A substantial portion of PVA

sales in the U.S. market consists of spot sales or short-term contracts,219 and “meet-or-release clauses” are

relatively common in this industry.220

In these reviews, the Commission collected pricing data on six different products that accounted

for *** percent of total reported U.S. commercial PVA shipments between January 1, 2004 and

September 2008.221 The pricing data reflect a high degree of coverage of the limited subject imports

during the period of review.222 These data indicate that despite the discipline of the orders, there was still

a large amount of underselling by subject imports (*** of *** possible comparisons between subject

imports and the domestic like product involving margins that ranged from *** to *** percent).223

The underselling during the period of review under the discipline of the orders indicates, together

with the significant underselling during the original investigations, that underselling is likely to be

significant if the orders are revoked. In the original investigations we found that the significant

underselling by the cumulated imports depressed prices to a significant degree.224 With flat or declining

PVA demand in the reasonably foreseeable future, subject producers have the incentive to export to fill

their capacity and to price aggressively to increase their market share, resulting in more prevalent

underselling. Given the proportion of PVA sales made on the spot market or through short-term contracts

and the prevalence of meet-or-release clauses, we find that, in the event of revocation of the orders,

unfairly traded subject imports would affect U.S. prices relatively quickly in the non-PVB-grade

segments that constitute a large portion of the U.S. market.

Prices of the domestic like product increased during the period of review as PVA production

costs increased.225 We find that the likely significant quantities of low-priced cumulated subject imports

also would likely limit the domestic industry’s ability to raise or maintain prices commensurately with

costs in the event of revocation of the orders. Thus, we find based on the current record and the nature of

the U.S. PVA market that the domestic industry will likely face significant price depression and price
 226 See, e.g., Original Views (Japan) at 53 at n.185; Original Views (China/Korea) at 9 at n.24, 13 at n.35, 21 (“a

representative of respondent Solutia testified that it attempts to pit suppliers for the PVA it purchases against each

other in an attempt to obtain the best prices”).

 227 See, e.g., CR at V-11 to V-12; PR at V-6 to V-7.

 228 See, e.g., Solutia’s Prehearing Br. at 36.

 229 See, e.g., Solutia’s Posthearing Br. at A30, A33, A55; Solutia’s Prehearing Br. at 6-7.

 230 See, e.g., CR at V-11 to V-12; PR at V-6 to V-7 (discussing the ***); CR/PR at Tables V-2 to V-7 (showing

that ***); Celanese/DuPont’s Posthearing Br. at II-6 to II-8.

 231 Chairman Aranoff finds that the record does not support the conclusion that any Chinese producer is currently

qualified, or likely to be qualified within the reasonably foreseeable future, to supply more than a small portion of

Solutia’s U.S. demand for PVB-grade PVA. See, e.g., Solutia’s Posthearing Br. at A-30 to A-31, A-53, and A-55. 

She joins the Commission’s conclusion that, ***, revocation of the orders is likely to have adverse price effects on

the price of PVB-grade PVA in the U.S. market. Nevertheless, she would have found the likely volume and price

effects of subject imports solely of non-PVB-grade PVA sufficient to support her affirmative determinations in these

reviews, even in the absence of any effects on the portion of the market using PVB-grade PVA.

 232 Vice Chairman Pearson does not exercise his discretion to cumulate subject imports from Korea in his

assessment and instead finds that subject imports from Korea are not likely to have significant adverse price effects

on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time were the order against imports from Korea to be

revoked. See Separate and Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Pearson Regarding Cumulation and Regarding No

Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury if the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain PVA from

Korea is Revoked.

 233 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

31

suppression from the likely significant additional imports of low-priced subject merchandise in the event

of revocation, particularly given that subject imports will likely be competing with the domestic industry

for sales in a diminished U.S. market.

We note that at the time of the original investigations, ***,226 but there were no meaningful

imports of PVB-grade PVA into the U.S. market. If the antidumping duty orders on subject imports were

revoked, however, we find that unfairly traded subject imports would likely also affect PVB-grade prices. 

***.227 Solutia will ***. In addition, because these contracts are for ***, it would be relatively easy for

unfairly traded subject imports to affect prices for this end-use application in the event of revocation. 

Furthermore, if the orders were revoked, ***.228 ***,229 and having ***,230 In the event the orders are

revoked, Solutia would likely ***.231

For all of the foregoing reasons, we conclude that cumulated subject imports from China, Japan

and Korea are likely to have significant adverse price effects in the event that the antidumping duty orders

on these imports are revoked.232

3. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under review are

revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a

bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including but not limited to the following: 

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

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

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

production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of

the domestic like product.233 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the
 234 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the

magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy” in making its

determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of

dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as “the dumping margin or margins determined by the

administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887.

Commerce conducted expedited sunset reviews of each of the antidumping duty orders. See, e.g., CR/PR at

Table I-4. With respect to any revocation of the antidumping duty order on subject imports from China, Commerce

found likely margins of 5.51 percent ad valorem for SVW and 97.86 percent ad valorem for all others. See, e.g.,

CR/PR at Table I-4. With respect to any revocation of the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Japan,

Commerce found likely margins of 144.16 percent ad valorem for Denki Kagaku Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha, JVP,

Kuraray Japan, and Nippon, and 76.78 percent ad valorem for all others. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-4. With

respect to revocation of the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Korea, Commerce found likely margins

of 38.74 percent ad valorem for DC Chemical and 32.08 percent ad valorem for all others. See, e.g., CR/PR at

Table I-4.

 235 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked,

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

these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an

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

885.

 236 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 17-20. The Commission did not find that cumulated subject imports from Japan

and Korea had a significant impact on the domestic PVA industry, and it consequently made a negative

determination regarding present material injury with respect to subject imports from Japan. See, e.g., USITC Pub.

3604 at 23-27. The Commission, however, made an affirmative threat determination concerning subject imports

from Japan which were cumulated with imports from Korea. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3604 at 32-34.

 237 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-3. Although the domestic industry provided data concerning its performance in

the fourth quarter of 2008, we have relied only on data reported in questionnaire responses through the third quarter

of 2008 that were subject to audit and verification by Commission staff and that corresponded to the time periods for

which other data (such as regarding imports and production operations in the subject countries) were collected in

these reviews.

32

business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry.234 As instructed by

the statute, we have considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry

is related to the orders at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders were

revoked.235

Given its findings in the original investigations about the significant volume of cumulated subject

imports both absolutely and as a share of apparent U.S. consumption and production, evidence of

significant underselling and price depression by subject imports, and corresponding declines in many of

the domestic industry’s performance indicators, the Commission concluded for purposes of its final

determinations concerning imports from China and Korea that cumulated subject imports were having a

significant adverse impact on the domestic PVA industry.236

The domestic industry experienced some improvements in its condition after the antidumping

duty orders were imposed on subject imports from China, Japan, and Korea. Its capacity, production,

U.S. shipments, productivity, end-of-period inventories, and financial performance generally improved.

Since imposition of the orders, the domestic industry’s capacity increased somewhat from ***

pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in 2007, and capacity in interim 2008 was *** pounds compared to ***

pounds in interim 2007.237 The domestic industry’s production fluctuated during the period of review but

increased overall, increasing from *** pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in 2004 and *** pounds in 2005. 

Production declined to *** pounds in 2006, but increased to *** pounds in 2007, and was *** pounds in
 238 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables III-3, C-1.

 239 See, e.g., CR at III-5; PR at III-2. Notwithstanding these reported capacity utilization levels, the domestic

industry confirmed that it was producing as much as it could during periods where it experienced various production

disruptions discussed earlier.

 240 See, e.g., CR at III-4; PR at III-2; CR/PR at Table III-2.

 241 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-4, Table C-1.

 242 Market share was lower in interim 2008 (*** percent) than in interim 2007 (*** percent). See, e.g., CR/PR at

Table C-1. In terms of the U.S. commercial market, the domestic industry’s market share increased from ***

percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2004 and *** percent in 2005, although its market share declined to *** percent in

2006 and *** percent in 2007 and was *** percent in interim 2008 compared to *** percent in interim 2007. See,

e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2.

 243 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables III-5, C-1.

 244 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables III-7, C-1.

 245 Commissioner Lane finds that the domestic industry is currently in a vulnerable state. Although the

performance of the domestic industry improved following the imposition of the antidumping duty orders in the

original investigations, the domestic industry experienced declines in production, shipments, and financial

performance between interim 2007 and interim 2008. Demand for PVA in the U.S. market also declined between

interim periods, in part due to decreased demand in the automotive and textile markets. Raw material and energy

costs increased substantially over the period of review. Furthermore, the current U.S. recession, coupled with the

global economic downturn and financial crisis, is presenting the PVA industry with unprecedented difficulties which

make it particularly vulnerable. See, e.g., Commissioner Lane’s dissent in Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from

Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub. 4052 at 39 n.55 (Dec. 2008). For these reasons, Commissioner

Lane finds that the domestic industry is currently in a weakened state and is vulnerable to unfair competition from

dumped imports. See also Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan, Inv. No. 731-TA-1088 (Prelim.) (Remand), USITC Pub.

3920 at 60 (Separate and Dissenting Remand Views of Chairman Pearson, Commissioner Okun, and Commissioner

Lane).

33

interim 2008 compared to *** pounds in interim 2007.238 The domestic industry’s reported capacity

utilization remained fairly constant throughout the period examined in these reviews, fluctuating between

*** percent and *** percent except in 2005, when capacity utilization reached a period high of ***

percent.239 *** reported plans to increase total PVA production capacity in the United States, and none

anticipated changes to their U.S. operations.240

U.S. shipments of the domestic like product fluctuated during the period of review. U.S.

shipments increased from *** pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in 2004 and *** pounds in 2005. Shipments

then declined to *** pounds in 2006 before increasing to *** pounds in 2007. U.S. shipments were lower

in interim 2008 than in interim 2007.241

After the antidumping duty orders were imposed on subject imports from China, Japan, and

Korea, the domestic industry was able to roughly maintain its share of total apparent U.S. consumption. 

Its share was *** percent in 2003 *** 2004 and increased to *** percent in 2005 before declining to ***

percent in 2006 and *** percent in 2007.242

The industry’s end-of-period inventories declined from a period peak of *** pounds in 2003 to a

period low of *** pounds in 2007. Inventories in interim 2008 were *** lower than in interim 2007.243

Employment levels generally declined over the period of review. Hourly wages fluctuated, but were

lower at the end of the period of review than at the inception. Productivity fluctuated on an annual basis,

but was higher in 2007 than in 2003.244

In contrast to the period examined in the original investigations, the domestic industry operated

profitably by the end of the period of review, although its financial performance was still not strong.245

The domestic industry had a *** percent operating margin in 2003, a *** percent operating margin in

2004, a *** percent operating margin in 2005, and a period high *** percent operating margin in 2006. 
 246 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables III-8, C-1; CR at III-15 to III-27; PR at III-6 to III-9. Its operating margin was ***

percent in interim 2008 compared to *** percent in interim 2007. See, e.g., id. In terms of the U.S. commercial

market, the domestic industry had a *** percent operating margin in 2003, a *** percent operating margin in 2004, a

*** percent operating margin in 2005 and a period high *** percent operating margin in 2006. In 2007, the industry

had a *** percent operating margin. Its operating margin was *** percent in interim 2008 compared to *** percent

in interim 2007. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables III-10, C-2; CR at III-27 to III-30; PR at III-9; see also, e.g.,

Celanese/DuPont’s Posthearing Br. at II-9 to II-11.

 247 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables III-13, Table C-1. Research and development expenses were ***. See, e.g.,

CR/PR at Table III-13.

 248 See, e.g., Solutia’s Posthearing Br. at 13-14.

 249 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables I-6, I-7, III-6; CR at II-4, III-12; PR at II-3, III-5. ***. See, e.g., CR at III-6, III12; PR at III-3, III-5.

 250 During the original investigations, non-subject imports’ share of the total U.S. market increased from ***

percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2001 but then declined to *** percent in 2002. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 251 Vice Chairman Pearson does not exercise his discretion to cumulate subject imports from Korea in his

assessment and instead finds that subject import volumes from Korea are not likely to increase to such a point as to

be significant, that subject imports from Korea are not likely to have significant adverse price effects on the domestic

industry, and that subject imports from Korea are therefore not likely to have a material impact on the domestic

industry, within a reasonably foreseeable time, were the order against imports of PVA from Korea to be revoked. 

See Separate and Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Pearson Regarding Cumulation and Regarding No Likelihood

(continued...)

34

In 2007, the industry had a *** percent operating margin.246 The domestic industry’s capital expenditures

fluctuated widely during the period of review, reaching a period high of $*** in 2007 and a period low of

$*** in 2003.247

As discussed above, the antidumping duty orders have restrained the volume of cumulated subject

imports shipped to the U.S. market. By restraining the volume of such imports, the orders contributed to

the industry’s improved financial performance during the period of review, and the domestic industry was

able to increase or maintain its market share and increase its production capacity, production, and U.S.

shipments notwithstanding unusual production disruptions. The domestic industry was able to raise its

prices during the period of review as its production costs increased. Nevertheless, as discussed above, the

domestic industry’s overall performance during the period of review was weak, and apparent U.S.

consumption was lower in interim 2008 than in interim 2007 consistent with current macroeconomic

conditions.

Solutia asserts that any increase in subject imports is likely to replace non-subject imports,

especially from Taiwan, which would thereby act as a “buffer” between subject imports and injury to the

domestic industry.248 We do not agree. Non-subject imports from Taiwan ***;249 there is no indication

on this record that these firms would switch to purchasing subject imports from China, Japan, or Korea if

the orders were revoked. Moreover, during the original investigations, non-subject imports, including

from Taiwan, held a meaningful share of the domestic PVA market and this did not prevent subject

imports from entering in injurious quantities and prices.250

Thus, in conclusion, we find that, in the event of revocation, low-priced cumulated subject

imports would likely increase in absolute terms and in their market share at the expense of the domestic

industry, significantly undersell the domestic like product, and depress and suppress prices of the

domestic like product. We find that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on the cumulated subject

imports would likely materially impact the domestic industry, including the domestic industry’s output,

sales, market share, employment, profits, and return on investment, particularly given current demand

conditions and because cumulated subject imports will likely compete with the domestic like product for

an even broader range of end-use applications than during the original investigations.251
 251 (...continued)

of Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury if the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain PVA from Korea is

Revoked.

 252 Vice Chairman Pearson dissents with respect to Korea.

35

CONCLUSION

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

from China, Japan, and Korea would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to

the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.252
 
 1

 19 U.S.C. § 1675(d)(2).

 2

 I adopt as my own the discussion of background, domestic like product, domestic industry, and conditions of

competition as laid out in sections I–III of the Views of the majority. I also join my colleagues’ analysis in sections

IV and V, except as otherwise noted therein.

 3

 Because I have determined not to cumulate subject imports from Korea with other subject countries based on the

fact that imports from Korea are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry, I have not

considered whether imports from Korea would be likely to compete with other subject imports and with domestic

like products in the U.S. market, as provided in 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7). 

 4

 For my views concerning the appropriate legal standard to be used in analyzing the issue of “no discernible

adverse impact,” see, e.g., Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, France, and India, USITC Pub. 3866 (July 2006)

(Additional Views of Chairman Daniel R. Pearson Regarding Cumulation).

37

SEPARATE AND DISSENTING VIEWS OF VICE CHAIRMAN DANIEL R. PEARSON

REGARDING CUMULATION AND REGARDING NO LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR

RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER ON

CERTAIN PVA FROM KOREA IS REVOKED

Section 751(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires that the U.S.

Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) revoke a countervailing duty or antidumping duty order in a

five-year (“sunset”) review unless Commerce determines that dumping or a countervailable subsidy

would be likely to continue or recur in the event of revocation and the Commission determines that

material injury to a U.S. industry would be likely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable

time in the event of revocation.1

 While I concur with my colleagues in determining that, based on the

record in these five-year reviews, material injury would be likely to continue or recur within a reasonably

foreseeable time if the antidumping duty orders on polyvinyl alcohol (“PVA”) from China and Japan

were to be revoked, I dissent from my colleagues and determine that material injury would not be likely

to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable time if the antidumping duty order on PVA from

Korea were to be revoked.

I. IMPORTS FROM KOREA WOULD LIKELY HAVE NO DISCERNIBLE

ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY PRODUCING PVA2

In making these determinations, I do not exercise my discretion to cumulate imports from Korea

with imports from China and Japan. I decline to exercise my discretion to cumulate imports from Korea

with other subject imports because I conclude that, if the antidumping duty order on imports of PVA from

Korea were to be revoked, imports from Korea would be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on

the domestic industry producing PVA.3 4

In performing my analysis with respect to subject imports from Korea, I have considered the

following: (1) the likelihood of significant production of the subject merchandise in the foreign country;
 5

 Cf. Titanium Sponge from Japan, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 751-TA-17-20, USITC Pub. 3119

at 7 (August 1998), aff’d, Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001); Solid

Urea from Armenia, Belarus, Estonia, Lithuania, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan, Inv.

Nos. 731-TA-339 and 340-A-1 (Review), USITC Pub. 3248 (October 1999) at 9 (discussion of Armenia); Chefline

Corp. v. United States, 170 F. Supp. 2d 1320, 1331 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001).

 6

 Thus, although I take likely volume into account, it is my view that the “no discernible adverse impact” standard

concerns likely impact, not likely volume.

 7

 CR/PR at Table IV-16. The Commission’s staff report points out that this reported production capacity is

somewhat *** pound capacity reported by DC Chemical in the original investigations. CR/PR at Table IV-15. This

change was not explained by DC Chemical. The Commission’s staff report also notes that an independent source,

SRI, reported that Korean production capacity was *** pounds in both 2003 and 2007. CR at IV-31 n.54; PR at IV15 n.54. These *** are not significant for my analysis. I note that Celanese/DuPont cited the *** in their posthearing brief for the proposition that *** Celanese/DuPont’s Post-Hearing Brief at 12 & n.23 (citing Japanese

foreign producer questionnaire response at Exhibit H). This assertion was challenged by Solutia in its Final

Comments. Solutia’s Final Comments at 9. The *** states that Korean production capacity was *** throughout the

period, but does not provide a conversion into pounds. *** Using a standard metric conversion, I calculate that ***

is about *** pounds. This figure is not significantly different from the *** pound capacity reported in DC

Chemical’s foreign producer questionnaire response in the original investigations.

 8

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

 9

 CR at IV-23; PR at IV-12.

 10 CR/PR at Table III-3.

 11 CR/PR at Tables IV-15 & -16. 

 12 CR/PR at Tables IV-15 & -16. 

 13 CR/PR at Tables IV-7 & -8. 

 14 CR/PR at Tables IV-11 & -12. 

 15 CR/PR at Table IV-19. With a capacity of *** pounds, DC Chemical’s facility is *** cited by a representative

of Solutia as “the economic scale for a PVA plant,” that being approximately 90 million pounds. Hearing Tr.

(public) at 133 (Mr. Feast); CR at III-7; PR at III-3. 

38

(2) the degree of competition between the imported product and the domestic like product; and (3) preorder and likely post-order subject import volumes.5 6

Taking these factors in order, I first determine that there is little likelihood of significant

production of the subject merchandise in Korea. DC Chemical Co., Ltd. (“DC Chemical”) is the only

Korean PVA producer, accounting for 100 percent of PVA produced in Korea in the period reviewed. 

DC Chemical also accounted for 100 percent of Korean production capacity, reporting *** pounds of

capacity throughout the period 2003 to 2007.7

 This is less than *** percent of the reported 2006 capacity

of the Chinese PVA industry of *** pounds,8

 about *** percent of the reported 2006 capacity of the

Japanese PVA industry of *** pounds,9

 and *** percent the 2007 capacity of the U.S. PVA industry of

*** pounds.10 Even though DC Chemical’s PVA facilities operated at *** percent of full production

capacity in 2007,11 its production level of *** pounds12 was only *** percent of the 2007 production level

of the one (of the 14 known) Chinese producer, SVW, that responded to Commission’s questionnaire13

and only *** percent of the 2007 production level of the one (of the 4 known) Japanese producer, JVP,

that responded to the Commission’s questionnaire.14 The production capacity of DC Chemical represents

*** percent of total global production capacity of *** pounds in 2006.15

In addressing the second consideration, the degree of competition between the imported product

and the domestic like product, I further find that, were the order to be revoked, DC Chemical’s exports to

the U.S. market are not likely to compete directly with the domestic like product. I note that, during

period examined in the original investigations, the two U.S. sectors into which a majority of Korean
 16 CR/PR at Table IV-4. The Korean industry’s focus on the *** sector was confirmed in questionnaire responses

during the original investigations by ***. Commission Staff Memorandum INV-AA-056 (May 27, 2003)

(Confidential Version) (“2003 Staff Report”) at Table IV-1. *** stated that its Korean imports were “sold to

specialty niches, namely to the packing materials market and to manufacturers of specialized construction materials.” 

2003 Staff Report at II-11 n.8 (citing *** postconference brief). *** further stated that “there is no reasonable

overlap between the Korean product and the domestic and other imported PVA except for nonsubject imports from

Spain and Taiwan. Id.

 17 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 18 CR at II-19 to II-20; PR at II-10 to II-11.

 19 CR at II-21; PR at II-10 to II-11.

 20 CR/PR at Figure II-1; CR at II-20; PR at II-11.

 21 CR/PR at Table IV-4. I do note that *** percent of DC Chemical’s production in 2007, and *** percent of its

production in interim 2008, went into the *** sector outside of the United States. CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 22 CR/PR at Table IV-4. I note that although it appears that *** percent of DC Chemical’s production in 2007

and interim 2008 went into the *** sector, this was one of three sectors that were consolidated into the “other”

column by the Korean producer. CR/PR at Table IV-18 & first note in table.

 23 CR at II-17; PR at II-9. It is notable in this regard that in the original investigations there were *** importers

who handled imports from DC Chemical, ***. 2003 Staff Report at Table IV-1. *** importers reported any PVA

imports for this sunset investigation. CR at I-24 n.63; PR at I-17 n.63 (showing that *** did not respond to

questionnaire); CR/PR at Table I-6 (showing that *** reported *** imports).

 24 CR/PR at Table II-4; CR at II-36; PR at II-20. I acknowledge that the results from the purchaser questionnaires

in the original investigations reveal a different view of interchangeability with the domestic like product. In all but

two of the 22 categories, the majority of responding purchasers rated the U.S. and Korean PVA as “comparable.” 

The two exceptions were “price,” in which the Korean product was rated better than the U.S. product, and “technical

support/service,” in which only a plurality rated the two as “comparable.” 2003 Staff Report at Table II-6. This

(continued...)

39

imports were sold were *** percent of imports from Korea in 2002, and *** percent of imports from

Korea in 2002.16 Neither of these uses are areas of strong competition with the PVA produced by

domestic industry. The *** sector was ranked *** among the specified sectors served by the domestic

industry’s PVA output in 2007 and interim 2008, holding *** percent share of domestic production in

interim 2008;17 it is also not a sector that is likely to be a source of significant import demand in the

immediate future given that the “slowing of the general economy, and weakness in broad market sectors,

such as . . . construction, . . . have reduced PVA demand.”18 DuPont also noted that overall demand for

PVA in the United States will continue to decline in the short-term due to the global economic crisis and

the overall downturn especially in the housing and construction industry.19 Likewise, the *** sector was

ranked *** among the sectors served by the domestic industry’s PVA output in interim 2008, holding a

*** percent share of domestic production; *** are also an unlikely source of import demand for either the

immediate future, or in the longer term, as ***.20

By far the largest market sector served by the domestic industry’s PVA output was the *** sector,

holding a *** percent share of domestic production in interim 2008; this was a sector into which the

Korean industry imported *** pounds in 2002.21 The second largest sector served by the domestic PVA

industry was the *** sector, holding a *** percent share of domestic production in interim 2008; this was

also a sector into which the Korean industry imported *** pounds in 2002.22 Additionally, I note that

because of the prolonged absence of the Korean product from the U.S. market, DC Chemical expects that

it would ***.23 Finally, I note that a majority of U.S. purchasers who responded to the Commission’s

questionnaire (4 of 5) stated that subject imports from Korea were either only “sometimes” or “never”

interchangeable with the domestic like product.24
 24 (...continued)

apparent shift in perceptions by purchasers between 2003 and 2008 is perhaps a measure of the effect that the long

absence from the U.S. market has had on customer beliefs regarding Korean PVA.

 25 CR/PR at Table IV-16. I note that official Commerce statistics show imports from Korea of *** that were not

explained. CR/PR at Table I-8. No CDSOA disbursements were made on imports from Korea during the period of

review. CR at I-15; PR at I-10.

 26 Because the order against Korea went into effect on October 1, 2003, this makes the 2003 import volumes

unreliable as an indicator of potential post-order volumes. CR/PR at Table I-2; CR at I-2; PR at I-1. 

 27 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 28 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 29 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 30 Polyvinyl Alcohol from Germany and Japan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1015 and -1016 (Final), USITC Pub. 3604

(June 2003) (“Views of the Commission (Germany and Japan)”) at 20 (Public Version); at 30 (Confidential

Version).

 31 The volume of imports from Korea was only found to be significant when later cumulated with imports from

China and Japan in the second part of the original investigations. Polyvinyl Alcohol from China and Korea, Invs.

Nos. 731-TA-1014 and -1017 (Final), USITC Pub. 3634 (September 2003) at 7-10 (Public Version); at 18-20

(Confidential Version). In 1995, the Commission terminated an investigation into imports of PVA from Korea in the

preliminary phase, finding that imports from Korea did not exceed the negligibility threshold. CR/PR at Table I-2.

 32 2003 Staff Report at Table VII-4; CR/PR at Table IV-16. 

 33 CR at IV-30 n.53; PR at IV-13 n.53. In 2007, Korea’s trade balance in PVA was a positive 13.9 million

pounds. Id. Because DC Chemical’s total exports in that year were *** pounds, CR/PR at Table IV-16, imports of

PVA into Korea in 2007 can be computed to be about *** pounds. This estimate is consistent with reported exports

of Japan to South Korea of 5.6 million pounds. CR/PR at Table IV-13.

 34 2003 Staff Report at VII-8 n.18. Korea’s switch from being a net importer to being a net exporter is likely due,

at least in part, to antidumping duties that Korea instituted in late-2006. At that time, Korea instituted antidumping

duties of 33.39 percent against U.S.-produced PVA. CR at II-7 n.15; PR at II-5 n.15. Duties of between 11.1 and

(continued...)

40

As for the third consideration, I note that pre-order subject import volumes were small and that

likely post-order subject import volumes would likely be even smaller. Because DC Chemical has

reported exports of *** pounds to the United States in every year of the period 2004 to 2007 and in

interim 2008,25 I have relied on its pre-order shipment volumes to the United States in assessing likely

post-order import volumes.26 During the period of the original investigation, imports from Korea were

*** pounds in 2000, *** pounds in 2001, and *** pounds in 2002. The Korean share of the U.S. market,

by quantity, was *** percent in 2000, *** percent in 2001, and *** percent in 2002.27 In all three years,

this was a *** share than held by Japan, but a *** share than held by China.28 In 2002, imports from

Korea, by quantity, were *** percent as large as imports from China.29 In the first part of the original

investigations, the Commission, in finding no material injury by reason of LTFV imports from Japan,

found that despite the “rapid growth” of cumulated subject imports from Japan and Korea, that in 2002,

“the presence of these imports in the U.S. market was still small and their share relative to production or

consumption in the United States was not a level we deem significant.”30 If, in 2002, the cumulated

subject imports from Japan and Korea were not significant, then certainly the portion of subject imports

coming from only Korea were, by themselves, also not significant.31

DC Chemical has regularly exported between *** percent of its production.32 While Korea was a

net exporter during the period being examined in this sunset review,33 a representative of the Korean

industry stated during the original investigations that Korea had been a net importer during that earlier

period.34 While DC Chemical has been a significant exporter, its pre-order exports to the United States
 34 (...continued)

35.17 percent were also levied on Chinese PVA at that time. CR at IV-16 & n.34; PR at IV-9 & n.34. Duties of

37.75 percent were also levied on Japanese PVA imports. CR at IV-23 to IV-24 & n.48; PR at IV-13 & n.48. 

 35 2003 Staff Report at Table VII-4. 

 36 CR/PR at Table IV-16. 

 37 2003 Staff Report at Table VII-4. 

 38 CR/PR at Tables I-1 & IV-17. Whereas U.S. imports from Korea ranged from 2.6 million pounds to 4.1

million pounds in the pre-order period, over the period examined in these sunset reviews, Indian imports from Korea

ranged from 2.7 million pounds to 4.5 million pounds, Indonesian imports from Korea ranged from 2.2 million

pounds to 3.8 million pounds, and Italian imports from Korea ranged from 0.2 million pounds to 6.9 million pounds. 

Id. Italy, India, and Indonesia were quite stable as the top three export destinations for Korean PVA throughout the

period examined in these review; the only exception was that Italy did not appear among the top three export

destinations for Korea in 2005 (replaced that year by Malaysia). Id.

 39 DC Chemical’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-11. 

 40 CR at IV-31; PR at IV-15 to IV-16. DC Chemical also stated that it ***. DC Chemical’s foreign producer

questionnaire response, section II-18a; CR/PR at Table IV-3; 2003 Staff Report at IV-2.

 41 CR/PR at Table IV-16. 

 42 CR at IV-31 n.54; PR at IV-15 n.54; DC Chemical’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-5.

 43 CR at II-17; PR at II-9. 

41

were modest, making up *** percent of its total exports to the world in 2000, *** percent of its total

exports in 2001, and *** percent of its total exports in 2002.35 By 2003, during the pendancy of the

order, the percentage of DC Chemical’s exports coming to the United States had declined to ***

percent.36 When expressed as a share of its total shipments, DC Chemical’s pre-order exports to the

United States appear less significant; DC Chemical sent *** percent of its total shipments to the United

States in 2000, *** percent of its total shipments in 2001, and *** percent of its total shipments in 2002.37

Since the imposition of the 2003 order, DC Chemical has regularly exported quantities of PVA to Italy,

India, and Indonesia within the range of, and sometimes exceeding, those quantities sent to the United

States in the pre-order period.38 Thus, the record indicates that, even pre-order, DC Chemical did not

focus on sending its exports to the U.S. market, and that since the imposition of the order, it has

developed established markets outside of the United States to which it sends a large and stable proportion

of its exports. Therefore, I conclude that, were the order against subject Korean PVA revoked, DC

Chemical would likely not focus, for the reasonably foreseeable future, on the U.S. market. 

The production of subject PVA is a *** segment of DC Chemical’s business, accounting for ***

percent of its total sales,39 but there appears to be little potential for product shifting by DC Chemical as it

reported that, during the period examined, it produced *** alternative products utilizing the same

equipment or labor used to produce PVA.40 DC Chemical’s PVA facilities operated at *** of capacity in

2007 and *** in interim 2008.41 DC Chemical stated in both the original investigations and in these

reviews that it has ***.42 Also, as stated above, I find it significant that DC Chemical believes that, due to

its extended absence from the U.S. market, ***.43

There is nothing in the record to indicate that DC Chemical’s volumes are likely to vary

materially from pre-order levels in the reasonably foreseeable future. In sum, if the antidumping order on

Korea were to be revoked, I find it likely that DC Chemical would not increase its exports to the United

States beyond 2000-2002 levels, which at their peak did not exceed *** pounds, or *** percent of total

U.S. consumption, a volume that I find to be not large enough to create a discernible adverse impact, and

that DC Chemical would likely only produce niche products that are not likely to compete with a

significant portion of the market for U.S.-produced PVA. Consequently, I conclude that, in the event the
 44 With regard to the legal standards for conditions of competition, I join my colleagues’ discussion in the

majority views.

 45 A discussion of the Commission’s findings in the original determinations is contained in the majority views.

 46 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 47 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675a(a)(2)(A)-(D).

 48 CR at II-16 & IV-30; PR at II-9 & IV-15.

 49 CR at IV-31 n.54; PR at IV-15 n.54.

 50 2003 Staff Report at Table VII-4.

 51 CR/PR at Tables IV-15 & -16; CR at II-16; PR at II-9.

 52 CR at IV-15; PR at IV-8.

 53 CR at IV-23; PR at IV-12.

 54 CR/PR at Table III-3.

42

antidumping order on PVA from Korea were to be revoked, imports of PVA from Korea would be likely

to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic PVA industry.

II. REVOCATION OF THE ORDER ON SUBJECT IMPORTS OF PVA FROM

KOREA IS NOT LIKELY TO LEAD TO CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE

OF MATERIAL INJURY WITHIN A REASONABLY FORESEEABLE TIME44

A. Likely Volume of Subject Imports45

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping order is

revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be

significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.46 In

doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumerated

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

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

(3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than the

United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the foreign country,

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

products.47

In this review, information on the PVA industry in Korea was provided by DC Chemical, which

was the only producer of PVA in Korea during the period examined in these reviews, as well as during

the period examined in the original investigations.48 DC Chemical submitted foreign producer

questionnaires in both the original investigations and in these reviews.49 During the original

investigations, DC Chemical reported production capacity of *** pounds in all three years examined50

and during these sunset reviews it reported a production capacity of *** pounds in all five years

examined.51 While no explanation for the *** in production capacity was offered by DC Chemical, a

third-party source has reported DC Chemical’s capacity as *** pounds in ***. Regardless of these minor

discrepancies, the production capacity reported by DC Chemical in 2007 is relatively small, less than ***

percent of the reported current capacity of the Chinese PVA industry of *** pounds,52 about *** percent

of the reported current capacity of the Japanese PVA industry of *** pounds,53 and only *** percent the

current capacity of the U.S. PVA industry of *** pounds.54 DC Chemical reported in the original
 55 2003 Staff Report at VII-8.

 56 CR at IV-31 n.54; PR at IV-15 n.54; DC Chemical’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-5.

 57 2003 Staff Report at Table VII-4; CR/PR at Table IV-16.

 58 CR/PR at Table IV-16.

 59 2003 Staff Report at Table VII-4; CR/PR at Table IV-16.

 60 CR/PR at Tables I-1 & IV-16.

 61 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 62 CR/PR at Table IV-17.

 63 CR at IV-31; PR at IV-15. 

 64 CR/PR at Table IV-16; DC Chemical’s foreign producer questionnaire response, sections II-17a & III-2. 

Although some PVA imports from Korea do appear in the official import statistics in 2004, 2005, and 2006, these

imports are of no commercial consequence, totaling to only *** pounds. CR/PR at Table I-1. No CDSOA

disbursements were made in connection with imports from Korea during the period examined. CR at I-15; PR at I10 to I-11.

 65 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 66 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 67 2003 Staff Report at Table IV-2.

43

investigations that it had no plans to expand production,55 and in these sunset reviews, DC Chemical

again states that it ***.56

The production capacity in Korea, in addition to being comparatively small, is also ***. Between

2000 and 2004, capacity utilization in Korea ranged from *** percent to *** percent.57 After declining to

*** percent in 2005, capacity utilization again rose steadily to *** percent in 2007 and in interim 2008

was at *** percent.58

Inventories in Korea as a percentage of total Korean shipments, after increasing from *** percent

in 2000 to *** percent in 2003, declined irregularly to *** percent in 2007.59 In interim 2008, Korean

inventories as a percentage of Korean total shipments increased to *** percent, as compared to ***

percent in interim 2007. Despite having increased somewhat in interim 2008, Korean inventories, at ***

pounds, were equivalent to *** percent of U.S. consumption of PVA in 2007, the last calendar year for

which complete data are available.60 U.S. importers held *** of Korean PVA at the end of each year of

the period examined in these sunset reviews.61

Korea exported PVA to at least 15 countries in 2007, several of which (e.g., China, India,

Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam) are much closer geographically to Korea than is the United States.62

DC Chemical reported that, apart from the United States, its PVA does not face any trade barriers in its

global markets.63

DC Chemical stated that it had exported *** any PVA to the United States since the imposition of

the antidumping order against Korea on October 1, 2003.64 Because of the absence of Korean imports

during the vast majority of the period being examined, I will use the pre-order volumes of imports from

Korea recorded during the original investigations to evaluate likely post-order import volumes. Korean

imports, by quantity, in the original investigations were *** pounds in 2000, *** pounds in 2001, and

*** pounds in 2002.65 As a share of total U.S. consumption, Korean imports were *** percent in 2000,

*** percent in 2001, and *** percent in 2002.66 As a percentage of total U.S. imports, Korean imports

held shares of *** percent in 2000, *** percent in 2001, and *** percent in 2002.67 As noted in my views

on cumulation, the Commission found in the first part of the original investigations that the presence of

Japanese and Korean PVA imports in the U.S. market “was still small and their share relative to
 68 Views of the Commission (Germany and Japan) at 20 (Public Version); at 30 (Confidential Version). In 1995,

the Commission terminated an investigation into imports of PVA from Korea in the preliminary phase, finding that

imports from Korea did not exceed the negligibility threshold. CR/PR at Table I-2.

 69 CR at II-17; PR at II-9.

 70 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 71 Regarding these sectors, see, e.g., comments by ***. CR/PR at Figure II-1; CR at II-20; PR at II-11.

 72 A discussion of the Commission’s findings in the original determinations is contained in the majority views.

 73 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering

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

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

at 886.

 74 2003 Staff Report at Table V-8.

 75 2003 Staff Report at Table V-1.

 76 2003 Staff Report at Table V-2.

 77 2003 Staff Report at Table V-4

44

production or consumption in the United States was not a level we deem significant.”68 In essence, I

agree with the Commission’s 2003 assessment of Korean import volumes and I find that, were the orders

to be revoked and were Korean imports to reappear in quantities similar to those observed during 2002,

this would not represent significant import volumes in either absolute or relative terms.

Moreover, I believe that, were the order revoked, the volume of U.S. imports from Korea would

likely be, for a reasonably foreseeable time, even less than the volume observed in 2002. As detailed in

my cumulation views above, DC Chemical believes that, due to its extended absence from the U.S.

market, ***.69 Additionally, the two sectors which used the majority of imports from Korea in 2002, ***

percent of imports from Korea and *** percent of imports from Korea,70 are sectors that have been

impacted adversely by the current recession and are not likely to be the source of significant import

demand within a reasonably foreseeable time.71 

I conclude that subject imports from Korea are unlikely to enter the United States in significant

volumes within a reasonably foreseeable time should the order be revoked.

B. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports72

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

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

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

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

price of the domestic like product.73

In the original investigations, the Commission collected quarterly pricing data on seven products,

but pricing data for Korea was available for only three of those products, 1, 2, and 4.74 For product 1,

pricing data for the Korean product was only available for 5 quarters in the last part of the period; there

was underselling in all five quarters with underselling margins ranging from *** percent to *** percent.75

For product 2, there was only one quarter of pricing data in the middle of the period, with a small

associated volume, in which the Korean product undersold the U.S.-produced product by *** percent.76

For product 4, there were eight quarters of pricing data, four of which showed underselling and four of

which, including the last three quarters, showed overselling. The margins of underselling ranged from

*** percent to *** percent, and the margins of overselling ranged from *** percent to *** percent.77
 78 2003 Staff Report at Table V-1.

 79 Views of the Commission (Germany and Japan) at 23 (Public Version); at 36-37 (Confidential Version).

 80 2003 Staff Report at Table V-1.

 81 2003 Staff Report at V-6.

 82 2003 Staff Report at II-7.

 83 Views of the Commission (Germany and Japan) at 22 (Public Version); at 35 (Confidential Version).

 84 2003 Staff Report at Table V-4.

 85 2003 Staff Report at V-24 & Table V-10. Even if the amount alleged by the Celanese/DuPont were correct,

and even if the entire quantity had been sourced from Korea, and not also from Taiwan as claimed by the purchaser

or from China as claimed by Celanese/DuPont, this purchaser, ***, would have been responsible for less than ***

percent of imports from Korea in 2001. The quoted price difference was about *** percent.

 86 2003 Staff Report at Table V-11. Purchaser *** agreed that it used a quote on Korean PVA to receive a ***

percent discount.

45

The quantities involved were significant only for product 1. I note that prior to the entry of the

Korean product in the fourth quarter of 2001, the price for the domestic product fluctuated between *** to

*** and that after the Korean product entered—in the last 5 quarters of the period—domestic prices for

product 1, although there was a declining trend, moved in a similar range of *** to ***.78 That these

ranges are almost identical leads me to agree with the Commission’s views stated in the first part of the

original investigations that “cumulated subject imports from Japan and Korea do not currently have

significant effects on prices for the domestic like product.”79

It is true that, for product 1, the domestic industry’s shipments ***, but this *** was prior to the

entry of the Korean imports of product 1, and the domestic industry’s quarterly shipment volumes

remained fairly steady at the *** for the remainder of the period, fluctuating between *** pounds and ***

pounds.80 Product 1 is primarily used in textile applications,81 and the staff report noted that “much of the

reduction in demand {for PVA} is reported to be the result of declines in the U.S. textile market, although

the slowdown in the general economy is also reported to have reduced demand.”82 I agree with the

Commission’s assessment in the first part of the original investigations that the underselling by subject

imports—in that case, cumulated imports from both Japan and Korea—“did not cause significant declines

in sales volumes for the competing U.S.-produced products during the period . . . .”83

Addressing briefly the pricing of product 4 in the pre-order period, I note that the volume of

Korean imports was concentrated in 2002, but that Korean volume in 2002 was *** percent of U.S.

shipments of product 4 in 2002. I further note that although there was *** in domestic prices for product

4 in 2002, from *** to ***, Korean imports during 2002 were generally overselling the U.S. product in

2002, with margins ranging from *** to *** percent in the final three quarters of 2002. In 2002, Korean

imports undersold the U.S. product only in the first quarter and by a margin of *** percent.84 I see no

causal link between the *** volumes of *** imports from Korea and any *** in prices of domestically

produced product 4.

There was *** lost sale allegation—out of a total of ***—in the original investigations that

involved Korean imports and the purchaser disputed the amount involved, an amount that ***.85 Korea

was mentioned in *** lost revenue allegations, *** of which were agreed to by the purchaser, and *** of

which involved only imports from Korea.86 The relatively small numbers of confirmed lost sales and lost

revenue allegations involving Korea confirm that Korean imports were not a significant source of price

pressure on the domestic industry during the period examined in the original investigations.
 87 There was one purchaser, in this current sunset review, that compared the pricing of Korean and U.S. PVA,

finding that U.S. prices were “superior,” meaning that U.S. prices were lower. CR/PR at Table II-5.

 88 CR/PR at Table IV-20.

 89 Views of the Commission (Germany and Japan) at 23 (Public Version); at 36-37 (Confidential Version).

 90 A discussion of the Commission’s findings in the original determinations is contained in the majority views.

 91 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 92 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude

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

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

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

U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. Commerce found that revocation of the antidumping duty order on

Korea would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following margins: 38.74 percent for

DC Chemical and 32.08 for all others. Note that these are exactly the same margins as were imposed after the

original investigations. CR/PR at Table I-4.

 93 Views of the Commission (Germany and Japan) at 26 (Public Version); at 41 (Confidential Version).

46

With little contemporary pricing data on Korean PVA available on this review record,87 I look to

unit values of global exports for a comparison, of an illustrative nature, of the average unit values (AUVs)

of U.S. exports with those of Korean exports. Fully realizing that product mix issues are frequently

present in AUV data, I note that these data show that the AUVs for the exports of both countries were

close throughout the period 2003-2006, with U.S. export AUVs being between 1.3 and 6.7 percent higher

than Korean AUVs, but that in 2007 and interim 2008, Korean export AUVs exceeded U.S. export AUVs

by 9.5 and 19.8 percent, respectively.88

After evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports from Korea should the antidumping

order be revoked, I find that there is not likely to be significant underselling by subject imports from

Korea and that subject imports from Korea are not likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing

effect on the price of the domestic like product. This conclusion is in agreement with the Commission’s

views stated in the first part of the original investigations that found “that cumulated subject imports from

Japan and Korea do not currently have significant effects on prices for the domestic like product.”89

C. Likely Impact of Subject Imports90

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

revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a

bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to the following: (1)

likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization

of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to

raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and production

efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic

like product.91 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the business cycle

and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry.92 As instructed by the statute, I have

considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is related to the

orders at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order is revoked.

In the first part of the original investigations, the Commission found that “[t]he record does not

indicate that there is a causal nexus between the industry’s declines in financial performance in 2001 and

2002 relative to 2000 and the cumulated subject imports from Japan and Korea.”93 In supporting this

conclusion, the Commission first recited its conclusions regarding a lack of significant subject import

volumes from Japan and Korea and regarding a lack of significant underselling by subject imports from
 94 Views of the Commission (Germany and Japan) at 26-27 (Public Version); at 41-42 (Confidential Version).

 95 Views of the Commission (Germany and Japan) at 26 (Public Version); at 42 (Confidential Version).

 96 CR/PR at Table I-1. Net sales by the domestic industry in interim 2008 were *** pounds, compared with ***

pounds in interim 2007. CR/PR at Table III-8.

 97 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 98 Domestic PVA production fluctuated over the period examined, ranging from *** pounds to *** pounds. 

CR/PR at Table I-1. Domestic PVA production in interim 2008 was *** pounds compared to *** pounds in interim

2007. CR/PR at Table III-3.

 99 The domestic industry’s market share, by quantity, in U.S. consumption fluctuated during the period examined,

ranging from *** percent to *** percent. The domestic industry’s market share, by quantity, in interim 2008 was

*** percent as compared with *** percent in interim 2007. CR/PR at Table I-9. As stated above, the largest share

in U.S. consumption held pre-order by Korea was *** percent, a share that is *** of the U.S. industry’s post-order

fluctuations in market share.

 100 The domestic industry’s gross profit as a share of net sales fluctuated over the period examined, ranging from

*** percent to *** percent. The domestic industry’s gross profit as a share of net sales was *** percent in interim

2008 as compared to *** percent in interim 2007. CR/PR at Table III-8. The domestic industry’s operating income

as a share of net sales fluctuated over the period examined, ranging from *** percent to *** percent. The domestic

industry’s operating income as a share of net sales was *** percent in interim 2008 as compared to *** percent in

interim 2007. CR/PR at Table III-8.

 101 The domestic industry’s productivity fluctuated over the period examined, ranging from *** pounds per hour

to *** pounds per hour. The domestic industry’s productivity in interim 2008 was *** pounds per hour as

compared to *** pounds per hour in interim 2007. CR/PR at Table III-7.

 102 The domestic industry’s return on investment fluctuated over the period examined, ranging from *** percent

to *** percent. CR/PR at Table III-12.

 103 The domestic industry’s capacity utilization fluctuated over the period examined, ranging from *** percent to

*** percent. Capacity utilization in interim 2008 was *** percent compared to *** percent in interim 2007. CR/PR

at Table III-3.

47

Japan and Korea or price suppression/depression resulting from subject imports from Japan and Korea.94

The Commission then stated that it believed that “there were several factors entirely unrelated to subject

import competition” that adversely affected the domestic industry, principally a “decline in U.S. demand

for PVA, particularly between 2000 and 2001 . . . .”95 I agree with the Commission’s analysis that factors

unrelated to subject imports from Japan and Korea were responsible for the degraded financial

performance of the domestic industry during the period examined in the original investigations.

In the period examined in these reviews, the domestic industry’s net sales, by quantity, fluctuated

over the period, ranging from *** pounds to *** pounds.96 Were the antidumping order against Korean

PVA to be revoked, I would expect, as discussed in detail in my cumulation section, that imports from

Korea would be at most *** pounds, the amount imported from Korea in 2002.97 Because I project

Korean import volumes to be, *** of the domestic industry’s net sales, and because I have already

determined that such Korean imports would not be significantly underselling the PVA sold by domestic

producers, I find that such Korean imports would not likely cause any significant decline in output,98

sales, market share,99 profits,100 productivity,101 return on investments,102 or utilization of capacity103 by the

domestic industry. Such a small relative volume of Korean imports is also not likely to have any
 104 The domestic industry’s cash flow fluctuated over the period examined, ranging from *** to ***. The

domestic industry’s cash flow in interim 2008 was *** as compared to *** in interim 2007. CR/PR at Table III-8.

 105 The domestic industry’s inventories fluctuated over the period examined, ranging from *** pounds to ***

pounds. The domestic industry’s inventories were *** at the end of interim 2008 as compared to *** at the end of

interim 2007. CR/PR at Table III-5.

 106 The domestic industry’s production and related workers (PRWs) fluctuated over the period examined, ranging

from *** to *** production related workers. There were *** PRWs in interim 2008 as compared to *** PRWs in

interim 2007. CR/PR at Table III-7.

 107 The domestic industry’s hourly wage fluctuated over the period examined, ranging from *** per hour to ***

per hour. The domestic industry’s hourly wage was *** per hour in interim 2008 as compared to *** per hour in

interim 2007. CR/PR at Table III-7. 

 108 The domestic industry’s capital expenditures fluctuated over the period examined, ranging from *** to ***. 

The domestic industry’s capital expenditures were *** in interim 2008 as compared to *** in interim 2007. CR/PR

at Table III-13.

 109 The domestic industry’s R&D expenditures fluctuated over the period examined, ranging from *** to ***. 

The domestic industry’s R&D expenditures were *** in interim 2008 as compared to *** in interim 2007. CR/PR at

Table III-13.

 110 CR at II-19; PR at II-10.

 111 2003 Staff Report at II-7.

 112 CR/PR at Table I-1. The shares of both subject and total imports in total U.S. consumption in 2002 remained

lower than the 2000 shares.

 113 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 114 CR/PR at Figure II-1; CR at II-19 to II-20; PR at II-10 to II-11 (discussion of decline in textile sector); CR at

II-21; PR at II-11 to II-12 (discussion of decline in housing and construction).

48

significant negative effects on the domestic industry’s cash flow,104 inventories,105 employment,106

wages,107 growth, ability to raise capital,108 investment, or on the existing development and production

efforts of the domestic industry.109

Although I note that there has been a “slowing of the general economy, and weakness in broad

market sectors,”110 it does not follow that subject imports are any more likely to enter in greater volumes

within a reasonably foreseeable time or that such subject imports are more likely to injure the domestic

industry. Indeed, during the last “slowdown in the general economy”111 in 2001, the share of both subject

and total imports in total U.S. PVA consumption declined; between 2000 and 2001, the share of subject

imports of PVA in total U.S. consumption declined from *** percent to *** percent, and the share of total

imports of PVA in total U.S. consumption declined from *** percent to *** percent.112 Although the

share of Korean subject imports of PVA in total U.S. consumption rose *** between 2000 and 2001, from

*** percent to *** percent,113 there is no reason to expect that Korean imports would increase in the

current economic conditions because, as described above, the sectors in which the Korean imports were

used during 2002 have been among the hardest-hit sectors in the current recession.114

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, I determine that, in the event that the antidumping duty order on imports of PVA

from Korea were revoked, material injury to a U.S. industry would not be likely to continue or recur

within a reasonably foreseeable time.
 1

 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

 2

 73 FR 31507, June 2, 2008. All interested parties were requested to respond to this notice by submitting the

information requested by the Commission. 

 3

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

notice of initiation of five-year reviews of the subject antidumping duty orders concurrently with the Commission’s

notice of institution. 73 FR 31974, June 5, 2008. 

 4 73 FR 53443, September 16, 2008. The Commission found that the domestic interested party group response to

its notice of institution was adequate, as was the respondent interested party group response of Korea. The

Commission found that the respondent interested party group responses of China and Japan were inadequate (with

Commissioner Lane dissenting with respect to China and Japan and Commissioner Pinkert dissenting with respect to

Japan). The Commission concluded that it would conduct full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act to

promote administrative efficiency.

 5

 On October 20, 2008, the Commission issued a letter requesting comments about an allegation made by

domestic producer, Solutia, Inc., ***. Letter from Robert Carpenter, Director of the Office of Investigations,

USITC, October 20, 2008. On October 31, 2008, Celanese Chemicals, Ltd. and E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

filed a joint response to the Commission’s October 20th letter. Letter from Patrick J. McLain, Attorney for Celanese

and DuPont, WilmerHale, October 31, 2008. In it they explained that ***. Letter from Patrick J. McLain, Attorney

for Celanese and DuPont, WilmerHale, October 31, 2008. See also Celanese/DuPont’s posthearing brief, Exhibit A.

 6

 The Commission’s notice of institution, notice of its decision to conduct full reviews, scheduling notice, and

statement on adequacy appear in app. A and may also be found at the Commission’s web site (Internet address

www.usitc.gov). Commissioners’ votes on whether to conduct expedited or full reviews may also be found at the

web site. 

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

On June 2, 2008, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”) gave

notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”),1

 that it had instituted

reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on polyvinyl alcohol (“PVA”)

from China, Japan, and Korea would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a

domestic industry.2 3

 On September 5, 2008, the Commission determined that it would conduct full

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act.4 5

 Selected information relating to the schedule of the

current five-year reviews appears in the following tabulation:6

Effective date Action

July 2, 2003 Commerce’s antidumping duty order on PVA from Japan (68 FR 39518)

October 1, 2003

Commerce’s antidumping duty orders on PVA from China and Korea (68 FR 56620 and

56621)

June 2, 2008 Commission’s institution of five-year reviews (73 FR 31507)

June 2, 2008 Commerce’s initiation of five-year reviews (73 FR 31974; June 5, 2008)

September 5, 2008

Commission’s determination to conduct full five-year reviews (73 FR 53443; September 16,

2008)

September 11, 2008 Commission’s scheduling of the reviews (73 FR 54619; September 22, 2008)

October 3, 2008 Commerce’s final results of the expedited reviews (73 FR 57596)

January 27, 2009 Commission’s hearing

March 12, 2009 Commission’s vote

March 27, 2009 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce 

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
 7

 Commissioner Bragg found that subject imports from Singapore would imminently exceed the statutory

negligibility threshold, and made a threat determination on PVA from Singapore.

 8

 Commission’s preliminary determinations, 67 FR 65597, October 25, 2002.

 9

 Commerce preliminarily made a negative antidumping duty determination with respect to Chinese producer

Sinopec Sichuan Vinylon Works but an affirmative determination with respect to other imports from China. 

Commerce’s preliminary determinations, 68 FR 7980, February 19, 2003; 68 FR 8203, February 20, 2003; 68 FR

13674, March 20, 2003; and 68 FR 13681, March 20, 2003.

 10 Commerce’s final determinations, 68 FR 19509, April 21, 2003; 68 FR 19510, April 21, 2003; 68 FR 47538,

August 11, 2003; and 68 FR 47540, August 11, 2003.

 11 Polyvinyl Alcohol from Germany and Japan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1015 and 1016 (Final), USITC Publication

3604, June 2003.

 12 Polyvinyl Alcohol from China and Korea, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1014 and 1017 (Final), USITC Publication 3634,

September 2003.

I-2

THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS

The Commission’s Investigations

The original investigations resulted from petitions filed on September 5, 2002, by Celanese

Chemicals, Ltd. (“Celanese”) and E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (“DuPont”). The only other U.S.

producer, Solutia, Inc. (“Solutia”), opposed the petition. The countries named in the petition were China,

Germany, Japan, Korea, and Singapore. In the preliminary phase of the original investigations, the

Commission made affirmative determinations on PVA from China, Germany, Japan, and Korea, but

found imports of PVA from Singapore to be negligible (thereby terminating the investigation on the latter

country).7 8

In 2003, Commerce made preliminary affirmative determinations regarding imports of PVA from

China, Germany, Japan, and Korea,9

 and subsequently made final affirmative determinations with respect

to these same four countries.10 Because the schedules became staggered at Commerce, the Commission

first considered whether the domestic industry was materially injured or threatened with material injury

by reason of subject imports from Germany and Japan. In June 2003, the Commission made a negative

final determination with respect to imports from Germany but an affirmative threat determination with

respect to subject imports from Japan. Imports from Chinese producer Sinopec Sichuan Vinylon Works

(“SVW”) were not eligible for cumulation at that time, and the Commission did not cumulate other

imports from China with imports from Japan, although it did cumulate imports from Japan with imports

from Korea for its threat analysis.11 

By the time of the Commission’s injury determination regarding imports from China and Korea

in September 2003, imports from SVW were eligible for cumulation. The Commission made an

affirmative present material injury determination regarding imports from China and Korea.12 

Subsequent Proceedings

Chinese producer SVW filed a summons with the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) to

appeal the Commission’s final affirmative injury determination but did not perfect the appeal by filing a

complaint, so the Court summarily dismissed the appeal. No other party appealed the Commission’s final

original injury determinations.

Chinese producer SVW also appealed Commerce’s final determination in the original

investigation to the CIT, and as a result of that appeal, SVW’s antidumping margin was recalculated from
 13 See Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not In Harmony with

Final Determination, 72 FR 36960, July 6, 2007; Sinopec Sichuan Vinylon Works v. United States, Slip Op. 07-88

(Ct. Int’l Trade May 30, 2007); Sinopec Sichuan Vinylon Works v. United States, Slip Op. 06-191 (Ct. Int’l Trade

December 28, 2006).

 14 In the original determinations, because the Commission concluded that all elements of the statutory captive

production provision were met, it focused primarily on the merchant market for the domestic like product in

determining market share and the factors affecting financial performance, although it analyzed there factors with

respect to the whole market as well. The captive production provision, 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iv), which was

added to the statute by the URAA, provides:

(iv) CAPTIVE PRODUCTION -- If domestic producers internally transfer significant production

of the domestic like product for the production of a downstream article and sell significant

production of the domestic like product in the merchant market, and the Commission finds that –

(I) the domestic like product produced that is internally transferred for processing into

that downstream article does not enter the merchant market for the domestic like product,

(II) the domestic like product is the predominant material input in the production of that

downstream article, and

(III) the production of the domestic like product sold in the merchant market is not

generally used in the production of that downstream article,

then the Commission, in determining market share and the factors affecting financial performance

set forth in clause (iii), shall focus primarily on the merchant market for the domestic like product.

The Commission has stated that the statutory captive production provision does not apply to five-year reviews. See,

e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from India and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-415 (Review) and

731-TA-933-934 (Review), USITC Publication 3994 April 2008, p. 18, n. 123.

 15 SVW was and is the primary Chinese exporter of PVA into the United States in both the original investigations

and the current reviews. However, in 2002, three PVA shipments were made by firms other than SVW amounting to

*** pounds. The three shipping firms were ***. In addition, Customs records showed an *** of *** pounds

manufactured by ***. *** stated that it was a provider of logistical services and did not submit a questionnaire

response. Lastly, Customs documents showed *** possibly erroneous entries totaling *** pounds manufactured by

***. *** informed Commerce that it did not show any exports of Chinese produced PVA to the United States. Staff

Report, INV-AA-056 (May 27, 2003), pp. IV-2 and IV-3 n. 8.

I-3

an amended final determination rate of 6.91 percent ad valorem to 5.51 percent ad valorem.

13 SVW then

appealed the CIT’s judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”), but

the parties ultimately agreed to dismiss the appeal. As discussed below, Commerce subsequently

conducted administrative reviews of SVW’s antidumping duty margins for the 2003/2004 and 2004/2005

periods, and calculated de minimis and 0 antidumping duties, respectively.

SUMMARY DATA

Table I-1 presents summary data from the original investigations and the current reviews.14 As

shown below, Japanese and Korean import shares diminished below *** percent of the total U.S. market

after imposition of the orders. The Chinese import share has continued to decline from its high of

*** percent in 2000 to its low of *** percent in 2007.15 The largest source of nonsubject imports is

Taiwan, with *** percent share of the total U.S. market in 2007.
I-4

Table I-1

PVA: Summary data from the original investigations and the current five-year reviews, 2000-07

(Quantity=1,000 pounds; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are per pound)

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers’ share:1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers’ share:1

 China *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subject subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other countries *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Nonsubject subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers’ share1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers’ share:1 

 China *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subject subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other countries *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Nonsubject subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from– 

 China:

 Quantity 19,588 13,287 13,400 5,869 5,519 6,155 6,662 4,539

 Value 11,968 10,227 8,375 4,011 3,795 4,521 4,973 3,813

 Unit value $0.61 $0.77 $0.63 $0.68 $0.69 $0.73 $0.75 $0.84

 Ending inventory quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan:

 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
I-5

Table I-1 – Continued

PVA: Summary data from the original investigations and the current five-year reviews, 2000-07

(Quantity=1,000 pounds; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are per pound)

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

 Korea:

 Quantity 2,584 3,789 4,122 2,014 126 4 44 0

 Value 1,986 3,215 3,116 1,500 114 44 85 0

 Unit value $0.77 $0.85 $0.76 $0.74 $0.90 $10.17 $1.93 (3

)

 Ending inventory quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, subject countries

 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan

 Quantity 21,410 15,640 14,076 23,539 28,117 20,777 23,354 26,127

 Value 16,318 13,359 9,988 16,402 19,048 16,654 19,340 24,012

 Unit value $0.76 $0.85 $0.71 $0.70 $0.68 $0.80 $0.83 $0.92

 Ending inventory quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other countries:

 Quantity 4,482 7,151 5,542 4,871 5,120 7,780 10,413 11,346

 Value 4,701 6,804 5,100 4,481 5,009 7,795 9,876 11,807

 Unit value $1.06 $0.95 $0.93 $0.92 $0.98 $1.00 $0.95 $1.04

 Ending inventory quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All countries:

 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers’: * * * * * * *

 1 In percent. 

 2

 Inventories of PVA from Taiwan for 2000-02 are included in the totals shown for “all other countries.”

 3 Not defined.

Note.-– Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Note.-– During the preliminary phase of the original investigations, the Commission determined that PVA imports from Singapore were

negligible and terminated its investigation. In the final phase of the investigations, the Commission made a negative determination with

respect to PVA from Germany. Both Singapore and Germany are included in “all other countries.” 

Source: Staff Report, May 27, 2003 (INV-AA-156), table C-1 (2000-02); data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from

official Commerce statistics (2003-07).
I-6

RELATED TITLE VII INVESTIGATIONS

The Commission’s Investigations

The Commission has conducted several previous import relief investigations on PVA. Table I-2

presents data on previous and related title VII investigations for PVA.

Table I-2

PVA: Previous and related investigations, 1995-2008

Date1 Number Petitioner(s) Country Outcome Status

1995

731-TA-726

(Final)

Air Products

and

Chemicals,

Inc. China Affirmative Order revoked, 66 FR 22145, May 3, 2001.

1995

731-TA-727

(Final)

Air Products

and

Chemicals,

Inc. Japan Affirmative Order revoked, 66 FR 22145, May 3, 2001.

1995

731-TA-728

(Preliminary)

Air Products

and

Chemicals,

Inc. Korea

Negligible/

Terminated

Commission determination, 60 FR 21829, May 3,

1995.

1995

731-TA-729

(Final)

Air Products

and

Chemicals,

Inc. Taiwan Affirmative Order revoked, 66 FR 22145, May 3, 2001

2002

731-TA1018

(Preliminary)

Celanese and

DuPont Singapore

Negligible/

Terminated

Commission determination, 67 FR 65597,

October 25, 2002. 

2002

731-TA1014 (Final)Celanese and

DuPont China Affirmative Order in place, 68 FR 56620, October 1, 2003.2

2002

731–TA1015 (Final)Celanese and

DuPont Germany Negative

Commission determination, 68 FR 38386, June

27, 2003.

2002

731-TA1016 (Final)Celanese and

DuPont Japan Affirmative Order in place, 68 FR 39518, July 2, 2003.

2002

731-TA1017 (Final)Celanese and

DuPont Korea Affirmative Order in place, 68 FR 56621, October 1, 2003.

2004

731-TA1088

(Preliminary) Celanese Taiwan Pending Notice of remand, 72 FR 10556, March 8, 2007.

 1 “Date” refers to the year in which the investigation was instituted by the Commission.

 2

 Commerce corrected the “all others” Chinese margin, which initially appeared as 7.86 percent, to the correct margin of 97.86

percent. Correction notice, 68 FR 58169, October 8, 2003.

 

Source: Compiled from Commission determinations and Commerce orders and revocations published in the Federal Register.

The Commission has conducted several previous investigations on polyvinyl alcohol, as indicated

above. The results of the most recent investigation, involving imports of polyvinyl alcohol from Taiwan,

are not yet final. The investigation of polyvinyl alcohol from Taiwan began on September 7, 2004, with

the filing of an antidumping duty petition by domestic producer Celanese. On October 21, 2004, the

Commission determined by a vote of three to two, with one Commissioner not participating, that there
 16 The Commission’s majority views were those of Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioners Okun and Lane. 

Then-Commissioners Koplan and Miller reached an affirmative determination, and filed dissenting views. ThenCommissioner Hillman did not participate in the investigation.

I-7

was no reasonable indication that an industry in the United States was materially injured or threatened

with material injury by reason of subject imports from Taiwan.16 

Subsequent Proceedings

On November 24, 2004, Celanese appealed the determination with respect to Taiwan to the CIT. 

On January 29, 2007, the Court issued a decision affirming the negative preliminary determination in part

and remanding it in part. In a remand determination issued on April 30, 2007, the Commission majority

consisting of Chairman Aranoff and Commissioners Williamson and Pinkert found a reasonable

indication that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of subject imports from

Taiwan; not having been Commissioners in the fall of 2004, these Commissioners had not participated in

the original investigations, so they reviewed the record de novo on remand. Vice Chairman Pearson and

Commissioners Okun and Lane, who had participated in the original investigation, again made a negative

preliminary determination and filed dissenting remand views. On November 19, 2008, the CIT affirmed

the affirmative preliminary injury determination. On January 16, 2009, domestic producer DuPont and

Taiwan producer Chang Chun Petrochemical Co., Ltd. appealed the CIT’s judgment to the Federal

Circuit. Briefing before the Federal Circuit will take place in the first half of 2009.

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 751(c) of the Act requires Commerce and the Commission to conduct a review no later

than five years after the issuance of an antidumping or countervailing duty order or the suspension of an

investigation to determine whether revocation of the order or termination of the suspended investigation

“would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the

case may be) and of material injury.” Section 752(a) of the Act provides that in making its determination

of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury--

(1) IN GENERAL.-- . . . the Commission shall determine whether revocation of

an order, or termination of a suspended investigation, would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The

Commission shall consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the

subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation

is terminated. The Commission shall take into account--

(A) its prior injury determinations, including the volume, price

effect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry

before the order was issued or the suspension agreement was accepted, 

(B) whether any improvement in the state of the industry is

related to the order or the suspension agreement, 

(C) whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the

order is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and 

(D) in an antidumping proceeding . . ., (Commerce’s findings)

regarding duty absorption . . ..
I-8

(2) VOLUME.--In evaluating the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise would be significant if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is

terminated, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the

United States. In so doing, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors,

including--

(A) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused

production capacity in the exporting country, 

(B) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely

increases in inventories, 

(C) the existence of barriers to the importation of such

merchandise into countries other than the United States, and 

(D) 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.

(3) PRICE.--In evaluating the likely price effects of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether--

(A) there is likely to be significant price underselling by imports

of the subject merchandise as compared to domestic like products, and 

 (B) imports of the subject merchandise are likely to enter the United

States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or

suppressing effect on the price of domestic like products.

(4) IMPACT ON THE INDUSTRY.--In evaluating the likely impact of imports of

the subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended

investigation is terminated, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors

which are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States,

including, but not limited to--

(A) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, 

(B) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment,

wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, and 

(C) likely negative effects on the existing development and

production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a

derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product.

The Commission shall evaluate all such relevant economic factors . . . within the context

of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected

industry.

Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states further that in making its determination, “the Commission may

consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy. If

a countervailable subsidy is involved, the Commission shall consider information regarding the nature of
 17 SVW’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-17-a.

 18 Polyvinyl Alcohols, March 2007, Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, p. 580.1810 F.

 19 See, e.g., DC Chemical’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-17-a and Polyvinyl Alcohols,

March 2007, Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, p. 580.1811 N.

 20 No duty absorption findings were made for any of the subject countries.

I-9

the countervailable subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the

Subsidies Agreement.”

Organization of the Report

Information obtained during the course of these reviews that relates to the above-discussed

statutory criteria is presented throughout this report. A summary of trade and financial data for the total

and merchant PVA markets, as collected in these reviews, are presented in appendix C. U.S. industry

data are based on the questionnaire responses of three U.S. producers of PVA that account for all

domestic production of PVA. U.S. import data and related information are based on Commerce’s official

import statistics and the questionnaire responses or other submissions of 13 U.S. importers of PVA that

are believed to have accounted for the U.S. imports of subject PVA from China, Japan, and Korea, as well

as the large majority of non-excluded PVA from nonsubject countries, most notably Taiwan. Foreign

industry data and related information are based on the questionnaire responses of three PVA producers:

one producer in China accounting for *** of China’s production and *** of China’s exports to the United

States;17 one producer in Japan accounting for *** percent of Japanese production of PVA;18 and one

producer in Korea accounting for all known Korean production.19 Responses by U.S. producers,

importers, purchasers, and foreign producers of PVA to a series of questions concerning the significance

of the existing antidumping duty orders and the likely effects of revocation are presented in appendix D. 

Finally, supplemental tables of U.S. producer’s shipments by type and nonsubject import price data

appear in appendixes E and F, respectively.

COMMERCE’S REVIEWS

Administrative Reviews20

Table I-3 presents information on Commerce’s administrative reviews of the subject antidumping

duty order on PVA from China. Commerce did not initiate administrative reviews of the antidumping

duty orders in place for Japan and Korea.

Table I-3

PVA: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for China

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

May 15, 2006

(71 FR 27991) 8/11/2003 - 9/30/2004

SVW 0.041

All others 97.86

October 23, 2006

(71 FR 62086) 10/1/2004 - 9/30/2005

SVW 0.00

All others 97.86

 1

 On June 21, 2006, Commerce amended its final SVW margin results from 0.04 percent to 0.03 percent (de minimis). 

Amended final results, 71 FR 35616, June 21, 2006.

Note.– On November 27, 2006, Commerce initiated an administrative review for the period of review October 1, 2005-September

30, 2006. This administrative review, however, was rescinded. Review rescinded, 72 FR 16766, April 5, 2007.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
 21 Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)).

 22 19 CFR 159.64 (g).

 23 The Federal fiscal year is October 1-September 30.

I-10

Results of Five-Year Reviews

Table I-4 presents the margins calculated by Commerce in its original investigations and first

reviews.

Table I-4

PVA: Commerce’s original and first five-year review antidumping duty margins for

producers/exporters, by subject country

Producer/exporter

Original margin

(percent)

First five-year review

margin (percent)

China1

Sinopec Sichuan Vinylon Works 6.91 5.51

All others 97.862 97.86

Japan3

Denki Kagaku Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha 144.16 144.16

Japan VAM & POVAL Co., Ltd. 144.16 144.16

Kuraray Co., Ltd. 144.16 144.16

The Nippon Synthetic Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. 144.16 144.16

All others 76.78 76.78

Korea4

DC Chemical Company, Ltd. 38.74 38.74

All others 32.08 32.08

 1 Antidumping duty order, 68 FR 56620, October 1, 2003; final results of first expedited sunset review, 73 FR 57597, October

3, 2008.

 2

 Correction notice, 68 FR 58169, October 8, 2003.

 3

 Antidumping duty order, 68 FR 39518, July 2, 2003; final results of first expedited sunset review, 73 FR 57597, October 3,

2008.

 4

 Antidumping duty order, 68 FR 56621, October 1, 2003; final results of first expedited sunset review, 73 FR 57597, October

3, 2008.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

DISTRIBUTION OF CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT FUNDS

The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”) (also known as the Byrd

Amendment) provides that assessed duties received pursuant to antidumping or countervailing duty

orders must be distributed to affected domestic producers for certain qualifying expenditures that these

producers incur after the issuance of such orders.21 During the review period, qualified U.S. producers of

PVA were eligible to receive disbursements from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”)

under CDSOA relating to three antidumping duty orders on the subject product beginning in Federal

fiscal year 2003.22 23 No disbursements have been made with respect to the order in place for Korea. In

2007 and 2008, DuPont received the only disbursements made from the order in place for China, in the

amount of $67.63 and $177,878.35. In 2003 and 2004, Celanese received disbursements from the order

in place for Japan in the amount of $225,561.61 and $60,738.02, respectively. In 2004, 2006, 2007, and

2008 DuPont received disbursements from the order in place for Japan in the amount of $429.60; 
 24 Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports 2003-08,

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/, retrieved on February 5, 2009.

 25 Staff believes that the appropriate term is “silane.” 

 26 Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 73 FR 57596, October 3, 2008.

I-11

$1,025,212.14; $1,044,902.95; and $63,542.72. In 2005, no disbursements were made from the order in

place for Japan.24

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

The imported product subject to the antidumping duty orders under review, as defined by

Commerce in its original orders, is PVA.

This product consists of all PVA hydrolyzed in excess of 80 percent, whether or not

mixed or diluted with commercial levels of defoamer or boric acid, except as noted

below. The following products are specifically excluded from the scope of these orders:

(1) PVA in fiber form. (2) PVA with hydrolysis less than 83 mole percent and certified

not for use in the production of textiles. (3) PVA with hydrolysis greater than 85 percent

and viscosity greater than or equal to 90 cps. (4) PVA with a hydrolysis greater than 85

percent, viscosity greater than or equal to 80 cps but less than 90 cps, certified for use in

an ink jet application. (5) PVA for use in the manufacture of an excipient or as an

excipient in the manufacture of film coating systems which are components of a drug or

dietary supplement, and accompanied by an end-use certification. (6) PVA covalently

bonded with cationic monomer uniformly present on all polymer chains in a

concentration equal to or greater than one mole percent. (7) PVA covalently bonded with

carboxylic acid uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration equal to or

greater than two mole percent, certified for use in a paper application. (8) PVA

covalently bonded with thiol uniformly present on all polymer chains, certified for use in

emulsion polymerization of non-vinyl acetic material. (9) PVA covalently bonded with

paraffin uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration equal to or greater

than one mole percent. (10) PVA covalently bonded with silan {sic}25 uniformly present

on all polymer chains certified for use in paper coating applications. (11) PVA

covalently bonded with sulfonic acid uniformly present on all polymer chains in a

concentration level equal to or greater than one mole percent. (12) PVA covalently

bonded with acetoacetylate uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration

level equal to or greater than one mole percent. (13) PVA covalently bonded with

polyethylene oxide uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration level equal

to or greater than one mole percent. (14) PVA covalently bonded with quaternary amine

uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration level equal to or greater than

one mole percent. (15) PVA covalently bonded with diacetoneacrylamide uniformly

present on all polymer chains in a concentration level greater than three mole percent,

certified for use in a paper application.26
 27 In general, the information contained in this section was drawn from the publication for the original

investigations, Polyvinyl Alcohol from Germany and Japan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1015 and 1016 (Final), USITC

Publication 3604, June 2003, and from the ***, on December 3, 2008.

 28 Saponification is the chemical reaction in which an ester is heated with aqueous alkali to form an alcohol and

the sodium salt of the acid corresponding to the ester.

I-12

Tariff Treatment

Polyvinyl alcohol is imported under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”)

subheading 3905.30.00 and enters the United States at a column-1 general duty tariff rate of 3.2 percent

ad valorem for imports from countries with normal trade relations, including China, Japan, and Korea. 

The tariff rate remains unchanged since the original investigations. 

Description and Applications27

PVA is a water-soluble synthetic polymer, usually sold as a white granular solid or in powdered

form. PVA can be categorized on the basis of the degree of hydrolysis, the viscosity of an aqueous

solution, and the average molecular weight of the finished product. PVA is very stable in dry form. It is

nontoxic and therefore considered safe to handle and relatively environmentally friendly. Care must be

taken, however, to minimize airborne dust concentrations during shipping and storage to reduce the

potential for dust explosions.

The degree of hydrolysis is determined by the percentage of acetate groups in the polyvinyl

acetate feedstock that are replaced by hydroxyl groups in the finished PVA. Fully hydrolyzed PVA has a

replacement percentage in excess of 98 percent. The viscosity (resistance to shear stress or flow) of an

aqueous solution of PVA increases as the molecular weight of the PVA increases. The molecular weight

is determined by the average length of the polymer chain in the finished product in terms of monomer

units. Low-viscosity grades tend to have PVA chain lengths as low as 300 monomer units, with average

molecular weights around 45,000 to 55,000 unified atomic mass units (u), whereas high-viscosity, fully

hydrolyzed grades have PVA chain lengths up to 3,500 monomer units and average molecular weights

around 200,000 to 225,000 u. The degree of hydrolysis of PVA affects a variety of PVA properties, such

as solution interfacial tensions, compatibility, reaction kinetics, rheology, and water solubility. 

In the United States, PVA is used primarily as an intermediate in the production of polyvinyl

butyral (PVB), which is an adhesive used between panes of automotive safety glass or load-resistant

architectural glass. PVA is also used in the textile and paper industries in sizing formulations; as a binder

in adhesive and soil binding formulations; and as an emulsion or polymerization aid in colloidal

suspensions, water-soluble films, cosmetics, and joint compounds.

For most applications, PVA is dissolved in an aqueous solution. PVA’s solubility behavior in

water depends on several factors, including degree of polymerization, degree of hydrolysis, drying

temperature, particle size, and molecular weight. PVA polymers possess variable solubility properties,

ranging from soluble in cold (room temperature) water to soluble only in hot water. For example, PVA of

88 percent hydrolysis is soluble in both cold and hot water, whereas 98 percent hydrolyzed PVA may be

soluble only in hot water. All other characteristics being equal, the higher the degree of hydrolysis, the

lower the solubility. By altering certain product characteristics, however, solubility can be changed. All

standard grades of PVA, regardless of degree of hydrolysis, must be “cooked” to achieve complete

solubility. At the end of the saponification process28 PVA is a hard solid suitable for grinding into

granular or powdered form. 

PVA is sold in a variety of standard and specialty grades, each grade varying according to its

molecular weight and the degree of hydrolysis. According to the petitioners in the original investigations,
 29 The definitions of fully, intermediate, and partially hydrolyzed PVA in terms of degrees of hydrolysis vary

somewhat within the industry. 

 30 In general, the information contained in this section was drawn from the publication for the original

investigations, Polyvinyl Alcohol from Germany and Japan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1015 and 1016 (Final), USITC

Publication 3604, June 2003, and from the ***, on December 3, 2008.

 31 Celanese’s producer questionnaire response, section II-9.

 32 Solutia’s producer questionnaire response, section II-9 and hearing transcript (open session), p. 131 (Feast).

 33 DuPont’s producer questionnaire response, section II-9 and hearing transcript (open session), p. 27 (Korte).

I-13

the degree of hydrolysis is commonly denoted as super (more than 99 percent hydrolyzed), fully (98-99

percent hydrolyzed), intermediate (90-98 percent hydrolyzed), and partial (85-89 percent hydrolyzed).29

The specific performance of various grades of PVA varies with the degree of hydrolysis and

viscosity. For example, the greater the degree of hydrolysis, the better the water resistance. For this

reason, in adhesive applications that require water resistance, a fully hydrolyzed grade of PVA is used. 

On the other hand, in adhesive applications that do not require water resistance, a partially hydrolyzed

PVA may be used. Similarly, paper manufacturers select a specific grade of PVA depending on the

property required for the paper. Grease and water resistance, ink receptivity, and other components of the

size solution determine grade selection. In the textile market, where PVA is used as a warp sizing for

yarns to prevent breakage during weaving, various grades of PVA are selected for use depending on the

yarn, machine type, other components of the sizing solution (e.g., starch), required viscosity, abrasion

resistance, and ease of solution removal after fabric weaving.

Although all grades of PVA are not completely interchangeable with other grades, more than one

grade may be sold to specific end-use markets. For example, fully hydrolyzed PVA can be used in many

of the same end uses in which intermediate or partially hydrolyzed PVA can be used, such as textiles,

paper, and adhesives. The same grade of PVA is frequently sold for different commercial uses, and many

end users are able to use a wide range of grades. However, many applications have evolved using

particular grades such that substitution, although possible, could involve some cost and time to

reformulate, and end users tend to avoid changing the grade of PVA they use in their applications because

their formulas and process parameters might have to be adjusted. Because it is a synthetic water soluble

polymer with unique characteristics, PVA has few substitutes for most end-use applications.

Manufacturing Processes30

PVA is generally manufactured by first polymerizing the vinyl acetate monomer (VAM) into

polyvinyl acetate and then hydrolyzing the acetate groups with methanol in the presence of anhydrous

sodium methylate or aqueous sodium hydroxide at moderate temperatures and pressures. This is a

continuous process in which the end-product is PVA hydrolyzed in excess of 80 percent. All of the U.S.

producers and respondents use some form of a continuous manufacturing process to make PVA. 

Acetic acid, a by-product, could either be recycled to produce VAM or sold in the acetic acid

market. Given the high-volume need for acetic acid in the production of VAM, in general producers

return the by-product to their own production process rather than sell it on the market.

***.31 Solutia internally consumes all of its PVA to make PVB.32 DuPont has internally

consumed *** of its production in each year during review period. All of this PVA was used by DuPont

to manufacture PVB.33
 34 Polyvinyl Alcohol from Germany and Japan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1015 and 1016 (Final), USITC Publication

3604, June 2003, p. 6.

 35 Celanese and DuPont’s joint response to the notice of institution, p. 4. Celanese and DuPont indicated that they

do object to the Commission’s definition of the domestic industry as it includes Solutia as a domestic producer. 

They argued that Solutia should be excluded from the domestic industry because it imports the subject merchandise

and would benefit from LTFV imports. Accordingly, these two producers urged the Commission to exclude Solutia

from the definition of the domestic industry and suggested that the domestic industry be defined for purposes of this

sunset review as only “those producers whose collective output of the domestic like product constitutes a major

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.” Ibid. However, Solutia reported that it does not import

PVA. Hearing transcript (open session), p. 131(Feast). ***. Original Staff Report (INV-AA-056, May 27, 2003),

Table III-4 and nn. 3,4. 

 36 Celanese and DuPont also indicated that they believe that the Commission should apply the statutory captive

production provision whereby it would focus primarily on the merchant market for the domestic like product, as it

did in the original investigations. Celanese and DuPont’s joint response to the notice of institution, p. 4. The

Commission has previously stated, however, that the statutory captive production provision does not apply to fiveyear reviews. See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from India and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 701-TA415 (Review) and 731-TA-933-934 (Review), USITC Publication 3994 April 2008, p. 18, n. 123. 

 37 DC Chemical’s response to the notice of institution, p. 5 and Anhui Wanwei’s response to the notice of

institution, p. 4.

 38 Solutia’s response to the notice of institution; Hunan Xiangwei’s response to the notice of institution; and

JVP’s response to the notice of institution. 

 39 Comments from Choi Byung Young, KPMG-Korea (on behalf of DC Chemical Co., Ltd.), September 30, 2008.

 40 Solutia’s response, October 6, 2008 and Celanese and DuPont’s response, October 6, 2008. In 2007, ***

reported that it produced *** pounds of excluded forms of PVA. It reported *** production of excluded forms of

PVA for January-September 2008. 

I-14

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

In its original determinations, the Commission defined the domestic like product as all

domestically produced PVA meeting the specifications stated in Commerce’s scope definition, and it

defined the domestic industry as all domestic producers of PVA.34 Celanese and DuPont indicated in

their joint response to the Commission’s notice of institution in these reviews that they do not object to

the Commission’s definition of domestic like product.35 36 Korean producer DC Chemical and Chinese

producer Anhui Wanwei indicated that they agree with the Commission’s definitions of domestic like

product and domestic industry.37 Domestic producer Solutia, Chinese producer Hunan Xiangwei, and

Japanese producer JVP did not indicate their positions on the Commission’s definitions.38 DC Chemical’s

draft questionnaire comments requested that the Commission collect information regarding the expansion

of the domestic like product to include some of the excluded products.39 The domestic producers,

however, verified that they produce little to no excluded products.40
 41 Hearing transcript (open session), p. 16 (Purvis); hearing transcript (open session), pp. 26-27 (Korte); and

hearing transcript (open session), p. 131 (Feast). 

 42 Celanese’s importer questionnaire response, section II-11-b and II-12-a and b.

 43 DuPont’s importer questionnaire response, section II-10-a and b. 

 44 Solutia’s producer questionnaire response, section II-14 and Hearing transcript (open session), p. 131 (Feast).

 45 Celanese’s producer questionnaire response, section I-5 and I-6; DuPont’s producer questionnaire response,

section I-5 and I-6; and Solutia’s producer questionnaire response, section I-5 and I-6.

I-15

U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

As was the case in the original investigations, there are currently three producers of PVA in the

United States: (1) Celanese; (2) DuPont; and (3) Solutia. These three firms account for 100 percent of

the U.S. production of PVA. Domestic production of PVA is in Texas, Kentucky, Michigan, and

Massachusetts. Details regarding each firm’s production location(s), shares of 2002 and 2007 PVA

production, and position on the orders are presented in table I-5.

Table I-5

PVA: U.S. producers, position on the petition, shares of U.S. production in 2002 and 2007, and

U.S. production locations

Firm Production locations

Share of production Positions on the

continuation of the

2002 2007 orders

Celanese1

Calvert City, KY

Pasadena, TX *** *** Support

DuPont2 La Porte, TX *** *** Support

Solutia3

Springfield, MA

Trenton, MI *** *** Oppose

 1

 Celanese acquired the PVA business of Air Products in September 2000. Staff Report, May 27, 2003 (INVAA-056), pp. III-2. Celanese is a publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange. 

 2 DuPont is a publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange. 3 Solutia is a publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange. 

Source: Staff Report, May 27, 2003 (INV-AA-056), pp. III-4 and compiled from data submitted in response to

Commission questionnaires.

 Celanese and DuPont manufacture PVA for the merchant market and for internal consumption in

the production of downstream products while Solutia produces PVA only for internal consumption.41

Celanese reported that it *** and ***.42 DuPont reported that it ***.43 Solutia reported that it is not a

U.S. importer of PVA from any subject or nonsubject country.44 All three domestic producers reported

that they do not have any related firms (domestic or foreign) engaged in importing or exporting PVA

from any of the subject countries or any other country to the United States.45
 46 Third quarter 2000 report of Celanese AG filed November 2, 2000, p. 10 (as filed). Retrieved from EDGAR on

January 29, 2009.

 47 Ibid. Celanese AG (Aktiengesellschaft, “AG”) was formed from the basic chemicals, acetates, performance

products and technical polymers businesses transferred from Hoechst AG in a demerger that became effective on

October 22, 1999. Registration statement of Celanese AG on Form F-1 filed on October 25, 1999, pp. 47-48 (as

filed). Retrieved from EDGAR on January 30, 2009.

 48 Celanese Corp. Annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, p. 4 (as filed) and

Note 2, pp. F-8-13 (as filed). Retrieved from EDGAR on January 29, 2009. The purchaser was Celanese Europe

Holding GmbH & Co. KG, formerly known as BCP Crystal Acquisition GmbH & Co. KG. 

 49 Ibid. The balance of these shares was acquired by January 2007. Ibid.

 50 Celanese Corp. Annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, p. 4 (as filed) and

Note 2, pp. F-8-13 (as filed). Retrieved from EDGAR on January 29, 2009. The purchaser was Celanese Europe

Holding GmbH & Co. KG, formerly known as BCP Crystal Acquisition GmbH & Co. KG.

 51 Ibid.

 52 Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan, Inv. No. 731-1088 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3732, October 2004, p.

III-1.

 53 Hearing transcript (open session), p. 26 (Korte).

 54 http://www.solutia.com/reorganization/caseinfo.asp, retrieved February 19, 2009.

 55 http://investor.solutia.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=88803&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1113553&highlight=, retrieved

February 19, 2009.

 56 Ibid.

 57 Polyvinyl Alcohol from Germany and Japan, Invs. Nos. 731-1015 and 1016 (Final), USITC Publication 3604,

June 2003, p. IV-1.

 58 Ibid.

I-16

Celanese AG purchased the polyvinyl alcohol business from Air Products on September 28,

2000.46 The stated purpose for the acquisition was to transform the chemical operations into a higher

value-added business.47 On April 6, 2004, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Celanese Corporation

(that was also an affiliate of investment banking firm, The Blackstone Group)48 acquired approximately

84 percent of the ordinary shares of Celanese AG.49 In November 2004, the affiliate reorganized, became

a Delaware corporation, and changed its name to Celanese Corporation.50 In January 2005, Celanese

Corporation’s initial public offering was completed.51

DuPont has been producing PVA in La Porte, TX since 1972.52 DuPont’s PVA production at this

facility is limited to fully hydrolyzed grades.53

On December 17, 2003, Solutia filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of

the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.54 On November 29, 2007, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern

District of New York confirmed Solutia’s plan of reorganization and approved the company’s exit from

bankruptcy.55 On February 28, 2008, Solutia emerged from Chapter 11 reorganization.56

U.S. Importers

In the original investigations, the Commission sent importer questionnaires to 28 firms believed

to be either importers of PVA from the subject countries or importers from significant nonsubject sources;

in addition, each of the three U.S. producers received importer questionnaires.57 Responses to the

Commission’s importer questionnaires in the final phase of the original investigations were received from

16 companies.58 DC Chemical, of Korea, reported in its response to the Commission’s notice of

institution in these reviews that there have been no imports of subject merchandise from Korea since the
 59 Response of DC Chemical, July 22, 2008, p. 3.

 60 Polyvinyl Alcohols, March 2007, Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, p. 580.1811 N.

 61 Response of JVP, July 22, 2008, p. 7.

 62 Celanese and DuPont’s joint response to the notice of institution, p. 16, and Solutia’s response to the notice of

institution, p. 3.

 63 The five firms are ***. Email from ***, December 11, 2008. Two firms certified to the Commission that they

had not imported PVA from any country at any time since January 1, 2003 (*** and ***). Four firms did not

respond to the Commission’s importer questionnaire (***).

 64 Purchases reported by these firms accounted for approximately *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in

2007. 

I-17

imposition of the antidumping duty order.59 Japan VAM POVAL (“JVP”), believed to be the ***60

producer of subject merchandise in Japan, reported in its response to the Commission’s notice of

institution in these reviews that, with respect to its exports of subject merchandise, *** have imported

subject merchandise from Japan since 2003.61 Celanese and DuPont in their joint response to the

Commission’s notice of institution in these reviews, listed nine U.S. importers of subject merchandise;

while domestic producer Solutia provided in its response to the Commission’s notice of institution a

listing of 75 U.S. importers of PVA.62 Staff cross-referenced these listings with information compiled by

Customs and Border Patrol (“Customs”) and issued questionnaires to all of the largest importers.

In response to the Commission importers’ questionnaires issued in these reviews, the 13 firms

identified in table I-6 supplied information regarding imports of within-scope PVA and, in some cases,

excluded forms of PVA . Included are ***. In addition, five firms confirmed imports of excluded forms

of PVA exclusively.63

Table I-6

PVA: Reported U.S. imports, by importer and by source of imports, 2007

* * * * * * *

U.S. Purchasers

As shown in table I-7, 13 purchasers have supplied usable data in response to Commission

purchaser questionnaires issued in these reviews.64 Responding firms were concentrated along the east

coast, including New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Additionally, the Commission

received purchaser responses from companies located in Missouri, Texas, Michigan, and Indiana. The

responding purchasers represented firms in a variety of domestic industries, including adhesive and

emulsion polymerization producers, ceramic manufacturers, PVB producers, paper producers, and

distributors.

Table I-7

PVA: U.S. purchasers’ PVA suppliers and country source of PVA purchased, 2003-08

* * * * * * *
I-18

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES

Table I-8 presents U.S. shipments, imports, and apparent U.S. consumption of PVA for 2003-07,

January-September 2007, and January-September 2008. Table I-9 presents total U.S. consumption and

market shares for the same period, and table I-10 presents open-market consumption and market shares. 

Apparent U.S. consumption (both open-market and total) increased between 2003 and 2004 and then

remained relatively stable through 2007. Apparent U.S. consumption reported during January-September

2008 was lower than the level reported during the same period in 2007. Market shares generally did not

shift dramatically during the period for which data were collected, although the shares held by imports

from each of the subject countries declined overall, while those held by imports from nonsubject

countries, including Taiwan, grew.

Table I-8

PVA: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, by sources, and apparent U.S.

consumption, 2003-07, January-September 2007, and January-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Table I-9

PVA: Total U.S. consumption and market shares, 2003-07, January-September 2007, and JanuarySeptember 2008

* * * * * * *

Table I-10

PVA: Open-market U.S. consumption and market shares, 2003-07, January-September 2007, and

January-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Note.— Data on U.S. imports of PVA from China, Korea, Taiwan, and all other (nonsubject) countries are

public and can be found in table IV-1.
 1

 ***.

 2

 Celanese noted that there is “much less buying power across most of the domestic industry than what we see

from purchasers like Solutia.” Hearing transcript (open session), p. 118 (Purvis).

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION/ MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

PVA is used in a wide variety of end-use products, of which PVB (polyvinyl butyral) is by far the

highest-volume in the United States.1

 Other high-volume end uses for PVA include textiles, paper

(coated paperboard), adhesives, and emulsion polymerization (adhesives, coatings, and engineered

fabrics). PVA is also used in the manufacture of a wide variety of other products including building

materials, biodegradable health care products, ceramics, and film. 

Only Celanese and DuPont produce PVA in the United States for sale on the open market. Solutia

produces PVA for the production of PVB and purchases domestic PVA, but does not sell PVA on the

open market. DuPont and Celanese produce PVA for most major applications; in contrast, Solutia

produces PVA ***for PVB applications. According to Celanese, the vast majority of the PVA market

(excluding Solutia) is highly fragmented, with most customers purchasing on average between 100 and

150 tons (200,000-300,000 pounds) per year.2

Shipments of PVA by U.S. producers and importers to distributors and end users are shown in

table II-1. Responding domestic U.S. producers sold PVA primarily to end users. The share to end users

decreased slightly from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2007. Available data indicate that U.S.

importers also sold primarily to PVA end users. For shipments of imports from China, *** throughout

the period were to end users. While the *** of shipments of PVA imported from Japan were to

distributors in 2003 (*** percent) and 2004 (*** percent), *** were to end users in 2005-07. Although

imports from Korea have diminished since the issuance of the antidumping order, in 2000-02, they were

primarily sold to end users. The share of shipments of PVA imported from Taiwan to end users increased

from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2007.
 3

 Information on the source of the PVA purchased by the firms that responded to the Commission’s purchaser

questionnaire is presented in Part I of this report. 

II-2

Table II-1

PVA: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments of PVA, by sources and channels of 

distribution, 2003-07, and January-September 20081

Item

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Jan.-Sept.

2008

 Share of reported shipments (percent)

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of PVA to:

 Distributors *** *** *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of PVA from China to:

 Distributors *** *** *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of PVA from Japan to:

 Distributors *** *** *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of PVA from Taiwan to:

 Distributors *** *** *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of PVA from all other countries to: 

 Distributors *** *** *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Data for Korea are not available.

Note.–Data for domestic producers include only U.S. commercial shipments.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. purchasers were asked to describe their firms with respect their purchases of PVA. Thirteen

purchasers responded to the Commission’s questionnaire; their responses are summarized in the following

tabulation.3

Number of firms Type of company

6 Adhesive producers (packaging, woodworking, bookbinding, paper converters).

5

Emulsion polymerization producer (adhesives, coatings, carpet, building and construction

materials, engineered fabrics).

1 Distributor 

1 PVB producer

1 Building products producer

1 Ceramics producer

1 Paper producer (coated paperboard).

1 Pharmaceutical products producer (water soluble packaging films)

1 Speciality polyvinyl alcohol film producer

Note.--A number of firms reported producing products in more than one of these categories.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 4

 *** reported purchasing *** pounds of domestic PVA in 2003 and *** pounds in 2007. While the

Commission’s purchaser questionnaire requested purchase data for January-September 2008, *** also provided

purchase data for the full calendar year 2008 ***.

 5 ***.

 6

 U.S. purchasers’ questionnaire, section II-3.

 7

 Purchasers were asked if they competed for PVA sales with the manufacturers or importers from which they

purchased PVA. Four of the responding purchasers, ***, indicated that they did compete for sales of PVA with

their suppliers. *** reported that ***. *** reported that ***. 

 8

 Purchasers were asked to indicate the trend in their purchases of PVA from each country source and to provide

an explanation for that trend.

 9

 One of the firms reporting no change in purchases was ***.

 10 *** also reported that PVA producers in Taiwan have a very innovative supply of resins and having access to

PVA from Taiwan is critically important to be globally competitive in ***.

II-3

Overall reported purchases by the 13 responding U.S. purchasers increased by 35.7 percent

between 2003 and 2007. Of the responding U.S. purchasers, *** was the predominant purchaser,

accounting for *** percent of the total reported purchases in 2007.4

 Other responding purchasers

included *** (***percent), *** (*** percent), *** (*** percent), and *** (*** percent).5

Overall, in 2007, two of the responding purchasers reported that they only purchased

domestically produced PVA;6

 one reported buying Chinese PVA; one firm reported *** of Japanese PVA

(in addition to PVA from Taiwan); and the remaining firms reported buying PVA from nonsubject

sources such as, Germany, Malaysia, Mexico, Singapore, Spain, and Taiwan.7

 U.S. purchasers reported

having actual marketing/pricing country of origin knowledge for PVA from China, Japan, Singapore,

Taiwan, Germany, and Korea. 

Purchasers were asked to discuss any changes in their purchasing patterns since 2003.8

 Of the 11

purchasers that responded with regard to their purchases of domestic PVA, 6 of these firms reported

increases in their purchases, 3 reported constant purchases and 1 firm reported a decrease in purchases of

U.S.-produced PVA. Reasons given for increased purchases of domestic PVA include increased demand

for end product (PVB film), addition of new business, and limited number of PVA suppliers. The one

firm that reported a decrease, ***, stated that the domestic material was ***. Three purchasers reported

trends in their purchases of Chinese PVA, with two reporting no change and one reporting fluctuations in

purchases due to fluctuations in the demand for its end product that uses PVA.9

 Of the five firms

providing information on trends in purchases of Japanese PVA, two reported decreases, two reported no

changes and one reported fluctuations. Reasons given for the decrease in purchases of Japanese PVA

include restricted supply and uncompetitive prices due to antidumping duty order. With regard to imports

of PVA from Korea, two firms reported that their purchases were constant and one reported fluctuations. 

Several firms reported increasing purchases of PVA from nonsubject countries, including Germany,

Singapore, and Taiwan. *** and *** reported that they increased their purchases from ***, ***, and ***

to diversify sources of supply. *** reported that it increased its purchases from *** following a

declaration of force majeure by domestic manufacturers. *** also reported that its purchases of PVA

from *** and *** increased because its business has grown and ***.10
 11 Short-run effects discussed in the supply and demand sections refer to changes that occur within 12 months,

unless otherwise indicated. 

 12 More detailed data on U.S. PVA production, production capacity, capacity utilization, inventories, and exports

are shown in Part III.

 13 At the hearing, DuPont reported that, during the period of review, its facilities did produce all the PVA that

they could. Hearing transcript (open session), p. 116 (Korte). Celanese stated that, earlier in the period, its assets

were not fully utilized but later in the period, they were more fully utilized. Celanese added that it sees “plenty of

excess capacity to produce PVA today and in the foreseeable future.” Ibid., p. 116 (Purvis).

 14 U.S. producers’ questionnaire, sections II-3 and II-6.

II-4

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS11

U.S. Supply12

Based on available information, staff believes that U.S. producers of PVA have the ability to

respond to changes in demand with moderate shipments to the U.S. market. The main contributing

factors to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of some unused capacity, the

existence of alternate markets, and moderate inventories; however, supply responsiveness may be

constrained by forces such as weather and VAM production that have disrupted/affected U.S. production

operations during the review period and by an inability to produce alternate products. Factors

contributing to this degree of responsiveness are discussed below. 

U.S. Industry Capacity

Total U.S. capacity to produce PVA increased from *** pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in 2007. 

Capacity utilization hovered near *** percent in each year except 2005, when it reached *** percent. 

U.S. producers’ capacity utilization rates were *** percent in January-September 2007 and *** percent

during January-September 2008. Because of high fixed costs involved in the production of PVA, U.S.

producers reported that it is important to maintain a high capacity utilization rate. Nonetheless, the

reported level of capacity utilization indicates that U.S. producers of PVA may still have some available

capacity with which they could increase production of PVA in the event of a price change.13 Celanese,

DuPont, and Solutia provided additional comments on capacity, which are shown in the following

tabulation.14

* * * * * * *

U.S. Inventory Levels

End-of-period inventories declined from *** pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in 2004, and to ***

pounds by 2007. Inventories were *** pounds in interim 2007 and in interim 2008. End-of-period

inventories were equivalent to a high of *** percent of total shipments in 2003 and a low of *** percent

in 2007. End-of-period inventories, relative to total U.S. shipments, increased from *** percent during

interim 2007 to *** percent during interim 2008. *** reported that the recent economic crisis and

reduction in demand for PVA *** limited its ability to build up inventories. *** reported that its

inventory levels had been adversely affected by production stoppages, shutdowns at its U.S. plants, raw

materials shortages, hurricanes, and unplanned power outages. These declining inventory levels suggest

that U.S. producers may be somewhat limited in their ability to use inventories to respond to price

changes in the short term.
 15 U.S. producers were asked if exports of their U.S.-produced PVA were subject to any tariff or non-tariff

barriers to trade in other countries. Only *** reported being affected by tariff and non-tariff barriers in other

countries. *** reported that a PVA dumping case against the United States and other countries was filed in Korea in

2006 and resulted in the application of an antidumping duty of approximately 35 percent. (Korea imposed a duty on

imports of PVA from the United States of 33.39 percent from December 12, 2006 through December 11, 2009. 

http://www.ktc.go.kr/en/kboard_child/list.jsp?bm=86&pg=3, retrieved February 19, 2009).

 16 Hearing transcript (open session), pp. 70-71 (Korte and Purvis).

 17 U.S. producers’ questionnaire, section II-5.

 18 ***. 

 19 Celanese reported that during the force majeure period, it made a commitment to its core customer base (i.e., its

domestic contract customers) at the expense of participation in spot export markets during that time period. 

Celanese stated that there was “extremely minimal impact to our domestic customers during our period of force

majeure and a very dramatic impact to...we took the hit in the export markets and the spot markets.” Hearing

transcript (open session), pp. 60-61 (Purvis).

II-5

Alternative Markets

U.S. producers’ exports of their U.S.-produced PVA increased irregularly from *** pounds in

2003 to *** pounds in 2007. U.S. producers’ exports were *** pounds during interim 2007 and ***

pounds during interim 2008. U.S. producers’ export shipments, as a share of total shipments, fluctuated

from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2007, and were *** percent in interim 2007 compared to ***

percent in interim 2008. This level of exports indicates that domestic producers have the ability to shift

shipments to the U.S. market from other markets. *** reported that its principal export markets were ***,

and products sold to domestic U.S. re-sellers that are destined for export. *** reported that its principal

export markets were ***.15 Both DuPont and Celanese reported that the PVA products that they export

are the same as those PVA products sold in the U.S. market.16

In response to a question on the ability of U.S. producers to shift sales of PVA between the U.S.

market and alternative country markets, Celanese and DuPont reported the following in their

questionnaire responses: ***

Production Alternatives

None of the three responding U.S. producers reported the ability to switch production between

PVA and other products in response to a relative change in the price of PVA using the same equipment or

machinery and/or production employees that were used to produce PVA.17

Production Constraints

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to discuss any supply problems that

occurred during the period of review. *** reported being unable to meet contractual commitments or

shipments during certain periods since January 1, 2003.18 Celanese reported that its PVA customers were

***. According to Celanese, ***. Celanese noted that for the most part, ***. Celanese noted that it

***.19 DuPont reported that during the period of review, its facilities produced all the PVA that it could;

there was one force majeure event driven by a hurricane in 2008 and there were also times when it had
 20 Hearing transcript (open session), p. 116 (Korte). In addition, DuPont provided detailed information on its

supply problems and the steps that it took to address them in its posthearing brief. DuPont noted that ***. 

Celanese/DuPont’s posthearing brief, Part II: Answers to Commission Questions, p. 5.

 21 DuPont also noted that, ***. DuPont producer questionnaire response, section IV-19.

 22 DuPont stated that ***. DuPont producer questionnaire response, section IV-19.

 23 Solutia reported that ***. Solutia’s posthearing brief, pp. A2-A3. On this issue, DuPont reported that in ***. 

DuPont noted that, at that time, since Solutia ***. Celanese/DuPont’s posthearing brief, Part II: Answers to

Commission Questions, pp. 42-45.

 24 Solutia noted that this supply situation puts its PVB business at risk and jeopardizes the jobs of Solutia’s 620

U.S. Saflex employees. Hearing transcript (open session), pp. 144-145 (Berezo).

II-6

small utility outages that resulted in some temporary delays in getting product to Solutia.20 21 DuPont

noted that ***.22 According to DuPont,*** .

U.S. purchasers were asked to discuss any supply disruptions or problems that they experienced

with PVA. Of the 13 responding purchasers, 9 firms reported that their suppliers of PVA placed them on

allocation, declined to accept quantities requested, delivered less than the quantity promised, or otherwise

departed from the normal course of supply. *** reported that *** placed it on allocation in *** following

a hurricane and again during ***. *** also reported that *** put *** on allocation in *** and *** when

***. *** reported that these actions forced it to enter into long term agreements with other suppliers. 

Likewise, *** reported that they were affected by the force majeure at ***. *** asserted that, in ***, ***

implemented a *** allocation for all contracts and the disruption was caused by production problems at

***. *** also noted *** instances for *** and *** for *** where PVA was shipped by trucks rather than

by railcars between 2003 and 2008. *** reported that it was forced to adjust shipment schedules because

*** was unable to ship during Hurricane Ike. 

Solutia provided very detailed information on its difficulties in obtaining PVA from domestic

suppliers. Solutia reported that during 2007-08, it experienced problems with PVA supply from *** as a

consequence of production problems including: (1) *** were not shipping *** the volumes it requested

and had under contract; (2) not shipping volumes in a timely fashion; (3) not shipping the quality agreed

under contract; (4) *** on contracted volumes during this period for *** material; (5) *** forcing *** to

accept a change in specification (lowering the quality) during contract negotiations for *** volume;23 and

(6)*** , and subsequently putting *** on *** percent allocation until further notice. *** placed customers

on allocation in *** by *** and put *** on allocation. In May 2007, *** lowered the allocation for ***. 

*** subsequently lowered the allocation to *** percent and ***. 

At the hearing Solutia noted that, in June 2007, Celanese experienced a problem at its acetic acid

plant in Clear Lake, TX and placed Solutia on a 20-percent PVA allocation for five months. Solutia

noted that that meant that Celanese did not supply Solutia with 80 percent of its contract volumes. 

According to Solutia, Celanese did not offer any alternative source of supply. At that point, Solutia went

to DuPont to cover the shortfall, as Solutia also had a long-term supply contract with DuPont for PVA. 

Solutia reported that it encountered supply problems with DuPont, as well, and, on September 28, 2008,

DuPont declared force majeure and placed Solutia on allocation at a level of 90 percent. Solutia stated

that this allocation lasted throughout the fourth quarter of 2008.24

Subject Imports from China, Japan, and Korea

Based on available information, producers in China, Japan, and Korea have the ability to respond

to changes in demand with at least moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of PVA to the U.S.

market. The main contributing factors are the availability of unused capacity and the existence of

alternative markets.
 25 SVW reported that it expects PVA shipments to the United States from subject countries will *** based on

reports that ***. 

II-7

China

One Chinese producer, SVW, responded to the Commission’s foreign producer questionnaire. 

This firm accounted for *** of U.S. imports of PVA from China.25 Based on available information, staff

believes that the Chinese producer SVW has the ability to respond to changes in demand with moderate to

large changes in the quantity shipped to the U.S. market due to the existence of alternative markets and

inventories. 

Industry Capacity

SVW’s average production capacity remained constant from 2003 through 2007 at *** pounds

and at *** pounds during the interim periods of 2007 and 2008. SVW reported that capacity utilization

for PVA increased from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2005 before declining to *** percent in

2007. SVW’s capacity utilization was *** percent in interim 2007 and *** percent in interim 2008. 

Alternative Markets

SVW reported that its products were shipped *** to its home market, *** to the European Union,

*** to other Asian markets. SVW’s total exports increased from *** pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in

2006 before declining to *** pounds in 2007. Exports in interim 2008 were *** pounds compared to ***

pounds in interim 2007. Exports accounted for *** percent of total shipments in 2007 and *** percent

during interim 2008. 

Inventories

SVW reported that combined end-of-period inventory levels increased from *** pounds in 2005

to *** pounds in 2005 before declining to *** pounds in 2007. SVW’s combined end-of-period

inventories increased to *** pounds in interim 2008 from *** pounds in interim 2007. End-of-period

inventories, relative to total shipments, decreased from *** percent during 2003 to *** percent in 2007. 

Production Alternatives

SVW reported that it *** other products on the same equipment and machinery used in the

production of PVA, *** production and related workers employed to produce PVA to produce other

products. Furthermore, SVW reported that it is *** to switch production in response to a relative price

change in PVA in the United States or elsewhere.
 26 Questionnaires were sent to four Japanese producers. JVP is believed to account for approximately *** of

Japanese production.

 27 Foreign producers’ questionnaire, section III-10.

 28 Foreign producers’ questionnaire, section III-12.

 29 Foreign producers’ questionnaire, section III-24.

II-8

Japan 

Based on available information, staff believes that Japanese producers have the ability to respond

to changes in demand with moderate to large changes in the quantity shipped to the U.S. market due to

the level of their exports to other countries and inventories. One Japanese producer, JVP, responded to

the Commission’s foreign producers’ questionnaire.26 JVP reported *** in product range, mix, and

marketing, between the United States and its home market. The company identified four PVA producers

in Japan including: Kuraray, Nippon Goshsei, Denki Kagaku, and itself.

 JVP reported that it *** a future change in terms of availability of PVA from Japan in the U.S.

market.27 *** inventories, *** capacity, and *** capacity utilization rates may constrain the ability of

the responding Japanese producer to increase its shipments to the United States. JVP reported that it ***

any changes in product range, product mix, or marketing of PVA in its home markets, for export to the

United States, or to third-country markets.28 JVP reported *** in the Japanese market over the last 2 to 3

years and that competition among Japanese producers has ***.29 It also stated that its home market and

those of its nearby Asian neighbors were ***. 

Industry Capacity

JVP reported that its average production capacity increased irregularly from *** pounds in 2003

to *** pounds in 2005 before declining to *** pounds in 2007; capacity continued to decline from ***

pounds in interim 2007 to *** pounds in interim 2008. JVP’s capacity utilization rate for PVA increased

from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2007, but declined from *** percent in interim 2007 to ***

percent in interim 2008.

Alternate Markets

 JVP reported that the domestic Japanese and nearby Asian markets *** accounted for ***

percent of its shipments. JVP’s exports grew annually from *** pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in 2007. 

The company’s total exports declined from *** pounds in interim 2007 to *** pounds in interim 2008. 

The company’s exports were destined ***. Exports to Asia *** of JVP’s total exports in 2007. 

JVP reported that, consistent with its business plan, it has ***. According to JVP, shipments to

*** markets have grown due to the ***. In 2008, JVP reported that it ***.

Inventories

JVP reported that its end-of-period inventories declined irregularly from *** pounds in 2003 to

*** pounds in 2007, and also declined from *** pounds in interim 2007 to *** pounds in interim 2008. 

End-of-period inventories relative to total shipments decreased from *** percent during 2003 to ***

percent in 2007. 
 30 Other Japanese producers, however, produce out-of-scope PVA products and have continued to export these

products to the U.S. market ***.

 31 DC Chemicals is believed to be the only producer of subject material in Korea.

 32 Foreign producers’ questionnaire, section III-10.

 33 DC Chemicals indicated that the domestic Korean market was *** and it anticipates *** significant changes in

key export markets. 

II-9

Production Alternatives

JVP reported that it *** other products on the same equipment and machinery used in the

production of PVA, *** production and related workers employed to produce PVA to produce other

products. Furthermore, JVP reported that it *** to switch production in response to a relative price

change in PVA in the United States or elsewhere.30

Korea

One Korean foreign producer, DC Chemicals, responded to the Commission’s foreign producers’

questionnaire.31 Based on available information, staff believes that Korean producer DC Chemicals has 

the ability to respond to changes in demand with moderate to large changes in the quantity shipped to the

U.S. market due to the existence of alternative markets and inventories. DC Chemicals reported that

***.32 It also reported that it anticipated *** in terms of product range, product mix, or marketing of

PVA in the U.S. market. The firm reported that there were *** during the manufacturing process

between the PVA produced for its domestic market and that produced for export; however, grades can

differ between domestic sales and exports due to the needs of each customer. DC Chemicals reported that

it faces import competition from ***.

Industry Capacity

The sole responding Korean producer, DC Chemicals, reported that its capacity utilization for

PVA declined from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2005 before increasing to *** percent in 2007. 

DC Chemical’s reported capacity was stable throughout this period at *** pounds.

Alternative Markets

DC Chemicals reported that its primary focus was on supplying PVA for ***.33 DC Chemicals

*** any significant changes in key export markets, although sales have ***. DC Chemicals’ total exports

declined irregularly from *** pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in 2007. The company increased its total

exports during interim 2008 from *** pounds during interim 2007 to *** pounds during interim 2008. 

Shipments to Asia and the European Union comprised *** of the company’s exports.

*** reported that there are *** contracts, other sales arrangements, or other constraints that would

prevent or retard the firm from shifting PVA between the United States and alternative country markets

within a 12-month period. However, the company indicated that *** shift shipments of PVA from one

country to another easily, since each customer, regardless of market, ***. Furthermore, ***. 

Inventories

DC Chemicals reported that its end-of-period inventories declined from *** pounds in 2003 to

approximately *** pounds in 2007; end-of-period inventories increased from *** pounds in interim 2007
 34 Polyvinyl Butryral, April 2007, Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, p. 580.1830 K.

 35 DuPont reported that since 2003, the textile industry has suffered in the United States through huge declines in

its manufacturing as major suppliers such as Dan River, West Point Stevens and Springs either declared bankruptcy,

were sold, or relocated offshore. DuPont also noted that similar declines in the U.S. automotive market have

occurred over the last five years and more recently in 2008, the downturn in the construction and housing industry

(continued...)

II-10

to *** pounds in interim 2008. DC Chemicals indicated that end-of-period inventories, relative to total

shipments, decreased from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2007. 

Production Alternatives

DC Chemicals reported that it *** other products on the same equipment and machinery used in the

production of PVA, ***. Furthermore, DC Chemicals also reported that it *** switch production in

response to a relative price change in PVA in the United States or elsewhere.

U.S. Imports from Nonsubject Countries

U.S. imports of PVA from nonsubject countries accounted for *** percent of the quantity of total

U.S. imports in 2007, with imports from Taiwan accounting for *** percent. With regard to the supply of

imports of PVA from nonsubject sources, *** reported that Chang Chun Petrochemical (Taiwan) started

up a new PVA plant in Jiangsu China in 2007. According to *** , this new PVA plant has an annual

production capacity of *** tons. Chang Chun also announced its intention to *** the capacity of this

plant to *** tons per year and also to increase the capacity of its Taiwan plant from *** to *** tons per

year in 2009.

With regard to nonsubject imports, *** responding U.S. producers reported that there had been

changes in PVA availability since 2003 from nonsubject countries. Three of the six responding U.S.

importers reported that their ability to import PVA from nonsubject countries had changed since 2003. 

*** reported that imports from Taiwan had increased and that PVA was now available from Singapore. 

*** also noted the following with regard to the availability of nonsubject imports. “ ***.”

U.S. Demand

Based on available information, the overall demand for PVA is likely to change moderately in 

response to changes in price. The main contributing factors are the somewhat limited range of substitute

products and the small share of PVA in most of its end-use products. However, some factors increase the

responsiveness of demand, including the large cost share of PVA in some intermediate products and the

existence of some substitutes. 

Available data indicate that total apparent U.S. consumption of PVA increased from *** pounds

in 2003 to *** pounds in 2007. However, apparent U.S. consumption of PVA declined from *** pounds

in interim 2007 to *** pounds in interim 2008. 

PVA is used mostly as an intermediate in the production of PVB, which is an adhesive used in the

manufacture of automotive safety glass and load-resistant architectural glass. Data on U.S. apparent

consumption of PVB resin indicate that consumption has increased from *** pounds in 2003 to ***

pounds in 2006; projected apparent consumption of PVB resin for 2011 is *** pounds.34 PVA is also

used in the textile and paper industries in sizing formulations, as a binder in adhesive and soil binging

formulations; and as an emulsion or polymerization aid in colloidal suspensions, water-soluble films,

cosmetics, and joint compounds. The slowing of the general economy, and weakness in broad market

sectors, such as automobiles, construction, and textiles, have reduced PVA demand.35 36 In particular, the
 35 (...continued)

has impacted many customers. Hearing transcript (open session), p. 39 (Korte).

 36 One recent report noted that for the first ten months of 2008, sales of motor vehicles (passenger cars and light

trucks) were down by two million vehicles versus the same period one year earlier, a 15-percent decline. This report

further noted that the decline accelerated during the latter part of the year and sales were about one-third

lower in October 2008 compared to the same month in 2007. CRS Report for Congress, U.S. Motor Vehicle

Industry: Federal Financial Assistance and Restructuring, December 3, 2008, p. CRS-1.

 37 U.S. producers’ questionnaire, section IV-13. U.S. importers’ questionnaire, section III-13.

II-11

annual shipment value of U.S. textile production fell continuously from $22.6 billion in 2003 to $9.3

billion in 2007, or by a total of 58.9 percent (figure II-1).

Figure II-1

U.S. textile production: Annual values of U.S. shipments of domestically produced textiles, 

2003-07

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, M3 Series–Value of Manufacturers’ Shipments, October 2008.

*** of the *** responding U.S. producers and all responding U.S. importers reported no changes

in PVA end uses since 2003.37 *** indicated that, although end uses for PVA have not changed,

industrial production in the United States, particularly in industries such as textiles and automobile

production, has declined and customers have gone out of business or relocated to lower cost countries. 

*** reported that the use of PVA in PVB applications has grown significantly in volume since 2003,

largely due to growing demand in architectural and automotive applications. 

Changes in U.S. Demand for PVA

U.S. producers were asked how U.S. demand for PVA has changed since 2003. *** reported that demand

in the United States had declined while *** reported that it had increased. *** responding U.S. producers

reported that they did anticipate future changes in PVA demand in the United States and the rest of the

world. DuPont noted that it believes that overall demand for PVA in the United States will continue to

decline in the short-term as a result of this economic crisis globally and the overall downturn especially in

the housing and construction industry. DuPont further noted that the extent and length of this decline is

not known at this time and that it has yet to see demand respond. Traditional industries and applications
 38 A witness for DuPont agreed with Solutia that the future for new applications such as a photovoltaic application

for PVB will eventually “grow demand” for PVA, but did not foresee that growth in the “immediate (1-2 years)

future.” Hearing transcript (open session), p. 33 (Korte).

 39 Hearing transcript (open session), pp. 172-173 (Feast).

 40 U.S. importers’ questionnaire, section III-29.

 41 According to DuPont, ***.

 42 U.S. purchasers’ questionnaire, section III-5.

II-12

for PVA such as textiles and adhesives in the housing market have not recovered.38 Solutia has reported

that it believes that demand for PVA will continue to grow. It noted that it expects that “2009 is going to

look a lot like 2008 in terms of a demand profile... and that 2010 is indeed going to be a year of

recovery.”39 In their questionnaire responses, DuPont, Celanese, and Solutia provided additional

comments about possible future changes in domestic demand for PVA, which are shown in the following

tabulation.

* * * * * * *

U.S. importers were also asked if demand for PVA had changed in the United States since 2003.40

Four of the eight responding importers reported that demand had increased and one indicated that it had

fluctuated. *** reported that changes in demand were based on overall demand for its customer’s the

end-use products.41 *** asserted that there had been changes in the availability of raw materials,

disappearing markets, unnecessary junk charges by governments, and complacency by PVA producers. 

*** reported that the global recession caused a general slowdown in production and that the largest PVA

industry (polyvinyl butyral) has been directly affected by a downturn in the domestic auto industry,

especially as U.S. auto manufacturers contemplate bankruptcy.

U.S. end-user purchasers were asked if the demand for their final end products which incorporate

PVA has changed since 2003.42 All but one of the 13 responding purchasers reported that the demand for

their final end products that incorporate PVA had changed since January 2003. Of those reporting

changes, six reported that demand had increased, four reported that it had decreased, and two reported

that it fluctuated. Eleven purchasers also reported that this change affected their demand for PVA. ***,

which reported that the demand for its end product had decreased, noted that its *** declined by roughly

*** percent due to foreign competition. Of those firms reporting increases in demand for their end

products, *** noted that its annual demand for PVA *** increased by *** from 2003 to 2007. 

Eight of the responding U.S. purchasers reported that they did anticipate further changes in their

demand for PVA. *** reported that it expected to lose its remaining *** business which would decrease

its PVA demand. *** reported that there would be moderate growth depending on economic conditions

and reported that demand had increased since it ***, which is now also a wholly owned subsidiary of

***. *** indicated that PVA demand may increase due to the introduction of new manufacturing

processes and reported that demand had fluctuated since 2005 because of the sale of several mills to the

*** in 2006. *** and *** provided additional comments concerning anticipated changes in demand in

their questionnaire responses which are presented in the following tabulation. 

* * * * * * *

Substitute Products for PVA

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to discussed the existence of substitute

products for PVA. *** of *** responding U.S. producers and two of the seven responding importers
 43 *** U.S. producers indicated that there had been changes in the number and types of products that could be

substituted for PVA since 2003. Also, *** responding U.S. producers reported that they do not anticipate any

changes in terms of substitutability of other products for PVA. Only one of the responding importers (***) reported

that there was a change in the number of substitute products; it noted that replacement products are being tried

because PVA prices have increased more than other water soluble polymer prices. *** noted that it expects this

trend to continue as PVA continues to “price itself out of the market.”

 44 *** noted that, “at the margins, the main products that could be substituted for PVA are starch, or carboxy

methyl cellulose (CMC) in the textile and paper industries for use as in spun yarn weaving applications as a sizing

for the warp yarns. The starch or CMC would be used to stiffen the warp yarns and allow for faster weaving. In the

paper industry, the CMC could be used a back side treatment for recycled paper board to eliminate linting during the

printing process. In the adhesive industry, starches or polyvinyl acetates could be substituted for PVA in applications

such as paper lamination for tubes and cores.” *** producer questionnaire response, section IV-15.

 45 *** reported that “starches can be substituted for PVA in some formulation used for textile sizing and adhesive

compounding. Cellulose ethers can be substituted in some formulations used in building product applications such

as joint cements and SBR ernulsion polymers can be substituted for PVA in some paper applications.” *** producer

questionnaire response, section IV-15.

 46 ***.

II-13

reported that there were substitutes for PVA.43 *** reported that there are no “drop-in” substitutes for

PVA for most applications but it did note that in some applications, starch, carboxy methyl cellulose

(CMC), and polyvinyl acetate could possibly be substitutes for PVA.44 *** reported that starches,

cellulose ethers, and styrene butadiene latex (SBL) could be substituted for PVA in some applications.45

For importers, six of the eight responding firms reported that there are no substitutes for PVA, while ***

reported that there were. *** listed hydroxy ethyl cellulose (HEC), CMC, and guar as potential

substitutes.46 For purchasers, 11 of the 13 responding firms reported that there are no products that can be

substituted for PVA. *** reported that starch can be substituted for PVA in textile sizing, and *** stated

that dextrimes could be used in place of PVA in paper converting and paper tubes. While *** identified

no substitutes for PVA in the production of ***, it suggested that starch can be used as a sizing agent in

textile production and SBL can be used as a binder and optical brightener in paper production, although

PVA is more effective in both applications. 

 *** reported that changes in the prices of potential substitute products do not impact the price of

PVA. According to ***, as the price of starch has increased rapidly over the last few years (as corn has

been diverted to ethanol production), the differential between starch and PVA prices has diminished, so

customers must continually evaluate the difference between overall formula cost versus performance in

their system. Even at these higher prices for starch, *** asserted that it is still significantly lower in price

than the PVA. *** indicated that substitutes do not drive prices for PVA, but the prices for these

substitutes have the potential to impact the demand for PVA as customers try to offset rising PVA costs

by substituting a lower cost additive. *** indicated that the price of substitutes had affected the price of

PVA. *** indicated that prices for both starch and SBL had risen quite steeply since 2003, facilitating

some changeover to PVA (extra demand) and allowed PVA producers to increase prices without having

to fear that textile producers and paper mills would switch back to their PVA alternatives. 

Only one U.S. importer reported that price changes for substitute products have affected the price

of PVA. *** reported that substitutes are less expensive than PVA at present and it expects PVA to lose

market share because of differences in relative prices. Similarly, virtually all responding purchasers

reported that price changes for substitute products have not affected the price for PVA.

Cost Share

PVA likely accounts for a small to moderate percentage of the final cost of the wide variety of

final products in which it is an input, although for the intermediate products such as textile finishing or
 47 According to ***, this is a relatively new industry with high potential as countries and industries search for

alternatives to fossil fuels. PVB is one of several encapsulant technologies that could be used such as EVA or other

polymers. ***. However, *** noted that the current macroeconomic issues in the United States and globally, along

with falling energy prices and a potential recession, may delay the growth in this industry. 

 48 Foreign producers’ questionnaire, section III-21.

II-14

adhesive compounds, it often accounts for a larger share. Producers, importers, and purchasers were

asked to provide information on the cost share of PVA related to the end product in which it is used. ***

reported that end uses included PVB (*** percent of the total cost accounted for by PVA), textiles (***

percent), emulsion polymerization (*** percent), adhesives (*** percent), paper coatings (*** percent),

and building products (*** percent). 

Only two U.S. importers responded. *** reported that end uses included emulsion polymers (***

percent of the total cost accounted for by PVA), adhesives (*** percent), and some dry blend adhesive

products (up to *** percent). ***, the other responding importer, reported that end uses included paper

(less than *** percent), adhesives (less than *** percent), and textiles (depending on finish between ***

percent).

Most purchasers reported that PVA’s share of the final cost ranged from minimal to 18 percent

for products such as adhesives, airflex dispersions, emulsions, PVAC adhesives, vinnapas powders, and

paperboard. Purchasers also reported a higher share for products like cold and hot water soluble film

(*** percent), TerraLOC dust abatement solution (*** percent), PVA dry blends (*** percent), ceramic

proppant (*** percent), PVB film (*** percent), and PVB specialty resins (*** percent). 

Foreign Demand

*** U.S. producers reported that demand outside the United States had increased since 2003. ***

reported that demand outside of the United States is growing due to expanding textile industries in

Pakistan, China, and Vietnam. According to *** demand for exported products from those regions to the

United States and other markets has resulted in an increase in overall demand for PVA for products in

local U.S. textile, paper and adhesive industries. *** reported that demand for PVB for automotive and

architectural applications in 2009 will be lower than in 2008. *** expects strong demand for PVA used

in photovoltaic applications such that total demand for PVA will continue to grow in 2009. *** reported

that Asian PVA demand has weakened recently after experiencing significant growth since 2003 and ***

indicated that demand for PVA in Europe would also weaken as well. The deterioration in global demand

for PVA is occurring just as Chinese, Japanese, and Korean producers are adding PVA production

capacity. *** reported that despite the general weak economic outlook for Europe, it expects growth in

Asia/Pacific, including strong growth in the photovoltaic applications for PVB film; currently the net

expectation is that PVB demand will see a modest growth in 2009 versus 2008.

Responding importers were mixed with regard to changes in demand outside the United States,

with one reporting that it fluctuated, one reporting that decreased, and three others stating that it

increased. Three of the seven responding U.S. importers reported that they did anticipate future changes

in PVA demand in the United States and the rest of the world. *** stated that demand will increase due

to increased demand for PVA film found in LCD flat panel displays. *** reported a new application for

polvinyl butyral as a thin-film encapsulant for the electronics in photovoltaic cells could increase the

demand for PVA in the future.47 *** anticipates this growth to start in ***.

Responding foreign producers generally indicated that demand for PVA in the rest of the world

since 2003 had increased.48 JVP reported that it anticipates that PVA demand ***. JVP anticipated that

demand for PVA ***. In contrast, however, *** did not anticipate any future changes in the demand for

PVA in non-*** markets. 
 49 Foreign producers’ questionnaire, section III-18.

 50 *** accounts for approximately ***. 

 51 Foreign producers questionnaire, section III-18.

 52 U.S. producers’ questionnaire, section IV-27.

II-15

Foreign producers were asked to describe the end uses of PVA they manufacture and sell in their

home markets.49 Chinese producer SVW reported that there are *** between the PVA sold in the either

the Chinese, U.S., or third-country markets. Korean producer DC Chemicals, reported that its PVA is

used in the production of ***. End uses reported by Japanese producer JVP include ***. JVP indicated

that the demand for ***. According to JVP, ***.50

Foreign producers were asked if there had been any changes in PVA demand in their home

markets, in the United States, or other export markets since 2003.51 DC Chemicals reported *** in the

demand for PVA in its home country market but it reported that its domestic market for PVA was ***. 

*** reported increasing home-market demand, citing rapid economic development and the expansion of

textile and adhesive production in Asian markets. 

*** and *** reported that they do not anticipate changes in future demand in their respective

home markets. *** reported that it expects PVA demand for *** to increase in its home market. 

According to ***, demand will increase not only in the automotive and construction industries, but also in

the construction industry and for architectural use. 

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution in demand between domestic and imported PVA depends upon factors

such as relative prices, conditions of sales (order lead times, payment terms, etc.), quality meeting

industry standards, conditions of sale, qualified status of supplier, and product differentiation. Product

differentiation depends on factors such as the range of products, quality (formulation standards, defect

rates, product consistency, etc.), availability, reliability of supply, product services, and the market

perception of these factors. Based on available data, there appears to be a moderate degree of substitution

between PVA produced domestically and that imported from China, Japan, and Korea.

U.S. producers and importers were asked if there had been any changes in the product range,

product mix, or marketing of PVA since January 2003.52 The *** responding U.S. producers and one of

four reporting importers, *** reported that there had been changes. *** provided additional comments in

their questionnaire responses, which are presented in the following tabulation. 

* * * * * * *
 53 U.S. purchasers’ questionnaire, section IV-6.

 54 U.S. purchasers’ questionnaire, section III-18.

 55 U.S. purchasers’ questionnaire, section IV-8.

II-16

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Purchasers were asked to identify the three major factors considered by their firm in deciding

from whom to purchase PVA (table II-2); 13 purchasers provided usable responses.53 Overall, availability

and price were listed most frequently in the top three; however, availability and product meeting

industry/company specifications were most frequently ranked as the leading factor in selecting a

purchaser.

Table II-2

PVA: Most important factors in selecting a supplier, as reported by purchasers

Factor First Second1 Third

Availability 4 5 1

Price 2 3 6

Product meeting industry/company specifications 3 - -

Quality 2 2 2

Capacity 1 - -

Reliability of supply - 1 2 

Pre-arranged contracts 1 1 2

Other2 ---

 1 One firm reported availability/reliability as the second most important factor. 

 2

 “Other” includes commercial offer (price, payment terms, consignment stock).

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked to identify those factors that determined the quality of PVA.54 Twelve of

13 purchasers responded and reported that factors influencing quality include bench-scale qualifications,

consistency of product chemistry, hydrolysis (pH); solubility, viscosity (ash), volatiles (methanol

content), end product properties for use in customer applications, and purity. *** reported that it uses

standard ASTM testing to ensure all incoming resin matches both the physical and chemical

characteristics per the Certificate of Analysis for the supplier (which is required for all incoming orders).

Purchasers were asked how often domestically produced, subject imports, and nonsubject imports

of PVA meet minimum quality specifications.55 As can be seen from the following tabulation, six of the

responding purchasers reported that PVA from the United States always meets minimum quality

specifications and the remaining three reported that it usually meets specifications. Similarly, all

purchasers found PVA imports from Japan to always or usually meet minimum specifications. 

Purchasers, however, were split on the degree to which imports of PVA from China and Korea meet

minimum specifications.
 56 U.S. purchasers’ questionnaire, section III-17.

 57 U.S. purchasers’ questionnaire, section III-14.

 58 Solutia reported that its first requirement for a potential PVA supplier is that it meets the physical specifications

on a consistent basis. Solutia requires a time consuming and expensive pre-qualification process for all potential

suppliers that generally take six to 12 months and ***. According to Solutia, U.S. PVA producers can all meet these

requirements, because PVB production is the largest PVA application in the United States. However, Solutia noted

that most PVA producers elsewhere in the world cannot meet its PVA requirements, generally because the products

are too high in color, the level of hydrolysis is unsuitable, or the residual methanol content is too high. These

potential suppliers produce PVA for local uses, such as vinylon fibers and textile sizing in China. Hearing transcript

(open session), pp.140-141 (Berezo) and Solutia’s posthearing brief, p. 7.

 59 Solutia’s posthearing brief, p. 7.

 60 Ibid., p. 7.

II-17

Country Always Usually Sometimes Never

United States 6 3 - -

China 2 2 2 2

Japan 5 4 - -

Korea 2 - 3 -

Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 19 specified factors in their purchasing decisions

for PVA (table II-3).56 Factors listed as “very important” by a majority of responding purchasers were

product consistency (13 firms), availability (12 firms), hydrolysis (12 firms), reliability of supply (12

firms), availability of preferred type (11 firms), price (11 firms), quality meets industry standards (11

firms), viscosity (11 firms), and supplier prequalification (10 firms). Factors frequently listed as “not

important” include minimum quantity requirements (7 firms), extension of credit (5 firms), and packaging

(5 firms).

Purchasers were asked if they required certification or prequalification with respect to the quality,

chemistry, strength, or other performance characteristics of PVA. All of the 13 responding purchasers

reported that they do require their suppliers to be certified before they will purchase PVA from them, with

most (11 firms) indicating that they require it for all purchases of PVA.57 Qualification generally takes

place over a period of 3-12 months.58 Factors considered in the qualification of a supplier included

bench-scale lab qualification, lab testing on the proppant, ISO certification, FDA guarantee, and

qualification trials. *** stated that no producer failed entirely, but some failed due to products not

meeting the company’s specifications. Only *** reported that a foreign or domestic producer had failed

in its attempts to certify or quality its PVA. ***.59 The company has attempted to qualify additional PVA

producers and the following firms failed: (1) *** was not able to meet our specification for *** ; (2) ***

was unable to meet *** specification for ***; (3) *** was unable to meet *** specifications for ***. ***

***. According to ***,***.60
II-18

Table II-3

PVA: Importance of purchase factors, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Purchase factors

Number of purchasers reporting--

Very important

Somewhat

important Not important

Availability 12 1 -

Availability of preferred type 11 2 -

Delivery terms 4 9 -

Delivery time 5 7 1

Discounts offered 3 6 3

Extension of credit 2 6 5

Hydrolysis 12 1 -

Price 11 1 -

Minimum quantity requirements - 5 7

Packaging 3 5 5

Product consistency 13 - -

Quality meets industry standards 11 - 2

Quality exceeds industry standards 6 5 2

Product range 6 6 1

Reliability of supply 12 1 -

Supplier prequalification 10 2 -

Technical support/service 5 5 3

U.S. transportation costs 4 7 2

Viscosity 11 2 -

Other (particle size) 1 - -

Other (meet company specs) 2 - -

Note.– Not all firms responded for all questions. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 61 U.S. purchasers’ questionnaire, section IV-5.

II-19

Purchasers were asked how frequently they were aware of country of origin of the PVA they

purchased, how often they knew the manufacturer, and how often their buyers were interested in the

country of origin of the goods they supply. Responses from purchaser questionnaires are shown in the

following tabulation.

Purchaser/customer decision Always Usually Sometimes Never

Purchaser knows country of origin 11 - 2 -

Purchaser knows producer 11 1 1 -

Purchaser’s customers know country of origin 7 - 6 -

Purchasers were asked if they or their customers ever specifically order PVA from one country in

particular over other possible sources of supply. Eight responding purchasers reported “no” and five

reported “yes.” *** reported that it purchased small volumes of one *** because there was no alternative

source of supply. *** reported that it prefers to order from U.S. producers because of better lead times

and product support. *** reported that customers sometimes prefer PVOH made in ***, because it has

*** and because they want a secondary source of supply. *** reported that some of its customers require

NAFTA certification, which requires U.S.-produced raw materials. *** reported “no,” however, it stated

that it competes globally and only prefers to buy PVA from the highest quality sources at a price that

reflects the value-in-use of the resin. 

Asked if certain grades, forms, or types of PVA were available from a single source, seven

purchasers reported “no” and four reported “yes.”61 *** reported that *** was only available from ***.

*** reported that it purchases one grade of *** from a domestic source, ***, because there is no other

source available. *** reported that the only foreign suppliers that could meet their specifications were

*** and ***. The company also reported that *** has tried to qualify *** for the main PVA grade it

purchases (*** percent of volume), but these suppliers failed to qualify.

Purchasers were asked if they always, usually, sometimes, or never purchased the lowest priced

PVA. Of the responding purchasers, three firms reported that they always buys the lowest-priced

product, one reported that it usually does, six reported that they sometimes do, and three reported never. 

Purchasers were also asked if they purchased PVA from one source although a comparable product was

available at a lower price from another source. Five purchasers reported that they had purchased PVA

from a certain source when a comparable product was available at a lower price. Reasons given include

quality of supply, reliability of supply, consistency, maintaining a purchasing relationship with multiple

suppliers without being dependent on only one vendor because market disruptions can occur at anytime;

and the inability to buy PVA on a spot basis and hence the need to cover 100 percent of needs under

contract because of the requirement of qualified suppliers.

Comparison of the U.S.-Produced and Imported PVA

In order to determine whether U.S.-produced PVA can generally be used in the same applications

as imports from China, Japan, and Korea, U.S. producers, U.S. importers, and U.S. purchasers were asked

whether the products can “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be used interchangeably. As

shown from Table II-4, U.S. producers were split regarding interchangeability between U.S.-produced

PVA and PVA imported from the subject countries. While two of the three U.S. producers reported that

the U.S. product was always or frequently interchangeable with PVA from China, Japan, and/or Korea,

one producer reported never. U.S. importers generally reported that PVA from China, Japan, and Korea
II-20

can always or frequently be used interchangeably. With regard to China, five of the seven responding

U.S. purchasers reported that Chinese PVA can sometimes or never be used interchangeably. U.S.

purchasers were split with regard to imports from Japan, with a number of firms reporting that PVA from

Japan can always (3 firms), frequently (4 firms), or sometimes (2 firms) be used interchangeably. With

regard to imports from Korea, four responding purchasers reported that they were sometimes or never

used interchangeably with domestic PVA and one firm indicated that imports from Korea were always

interchangeable with domestic PVA.

Table II-4

PVA: Perceived interchangeability between PVA produced in the United States and in other

countries, by country pairs

Country pair

Number of U.S. 

producers reporting

Number of U.S.

importers reporting

Number of U.S.

purchasers reporting

AFSNAFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. subject countries:

 U.S. vs. China 1 1 - 1 1 2 - - 2 - 3 2

 U.S. vs. Japan 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 - 3 4 2 -

 U.S. vs. Korea 1 1 - 1 1 1 - - 1 - 3 1

U.S. vs. nonsubject countries:

 U.S. vs. Germany 2 1 - - - - 2 - 4 4 - -

 U.S. vs. Singapore 1 1 - - 1 1 - - 3 4 - -

 U.S. vs. Taiwan 1 1 - 1 2 1 - - 4 5 1 1

Subject country comparisons:

 China vs. Japan - 1 1 1 - 2 - - - 1 2 1

 China vs. Korea 2 - - - 1 - - - - - 2 -

 Japan vs. Korea 1 - - - 1 -----2-

Nonsubject country comparisons:

 Germany vs. China - 2 1 - - 1 1 - - - 3 -

 Germany vs. Japan 3 - - - 1 - 1 - 2 2 - -

 Germany vs. Korea 1 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 1 -

 Singapore vs. China 2 - - - 1 1 - - - 1 1 -

 Singapore vs. Japan 2 - - - 1 1 - - - 1 1 -

 Singapore vs. Korea 2 - - - 1 -----1-

 Taiwan vs. China 2 - - - 1 1 - - - 1 2 1

 Taiwan vs. Japan 1 1 - - - 2 - - 2 - 1

 Taiwan vs. Korea 2 - - - 1 - - - - - 2 -

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 62 Foreign producers’ questionnaire, III-17.

II-21

Firms that reported that PVA from different sources was sometimes or never interchangeable

were asked to explain the factors that limit or preclude interchangeable use. *** reported that the PVA

produced in *** was different than the PVA made in the United States for the following reasons: (1) ***

PVA has ***, (2) *** PVA has a different particle size. *** reported that, in general, the products are

sometimes interchangeable due to the manufacturing process, but that the resulting finished product

properties may not be interchangeable. *** reported that different viscosities may have hydrolysis levels

that limit interchangeability. *** reported that Japanese (Nippon Goshei, Kuraray) and German

(Kuraray) producers have more technical grades available than are produced domestically. All three U.S.

producers, *** provided additional comments in their questionnaire responses which are presented in the

following tabulation.

* * * * * * *

*** foreign producers reported that the PVA produced and sold in their home markets was 

interchangeable with what they sold in the United States and/or to third-country markets.62 ***, however,

reported that it does not export the subject PVA in the U.S. market and that its home-market sales were

focused on 20-kilogram bags (as opposed to bulk sales or larger bag sales).

U.S. PVA purchasers were also requested to make country-of-origin comparisons between the

U.S.-produced and imported PVA for the specified purchase factors discussed earlier (table II-3) and to

indicate for each factor whether product from one country was superior, comparable, or inferior to

product from another country. Comparisons reported by the responding PVA purchasers are shown in

table II-5. 

The majority of responding purchasers indicated that PVA produced in the United States was

either superior or comparable to PVA imported from China for all different purchasing factors, other than

price. Purchasers indicated that PVA imported from Japan was primarily comparable for most of the

different purchasing factors. Only one purchaser provided a comparison of PVA produced in the United

States and that imported from Korea and it rated the U.S. product as superior for all factors. Purchasers

reported that PVA produced in the United States and imported from Taiwan, Singapore, and Germany

was generally comparable (or, in some instances the U.S. product was superior) for the different factors. 
II-22

Table II-5

PVA: Purchasers’ comparisons of domestic and imported products

Factor

U.S. vs. 

China

U.S. vs. 

Japan

U.S. vs. 

Korea

U.S. vs. 

Taiwan

U.S. vs. 

Singapore

U.S. vs.

Germany

S C I S C I S C I S C I S C I S C I

Availability 3 - - 3211- -17 - 22 - 221

Availability of preferred type 2 1 - 1 5 - 1 - - 1 7 - 2 2 - 2 2 1

Delivery terms 3 - - 2 4 - 1 - - 2 6 - 1 3 - 1 4 -

Delivery time 3 - - 5 1 - 1 - - 4 4 - 2 2 - 3 2 -

Discounts offered 2 1 - 4 1 - 1 - - 1 7 - 1 3 - 2 3 -

Extension of credit 3 - - 1 3 1 1 - - - 8 - 1 3 - 1 4 -

Hydrolysis 2 1 - - 5 - 1 - - - 8 - - 4 - - 5 -

Lower price 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 - - - 6 2 1 3 - 2 3 -

Minimum quantity

requirements 2 1 - 2 4 - 1 - - - 8 - 1 3 - 1 4 -

Packaging 2 1 - 1 5 - 1 - - 2 6 - - 4 - 2 3 -

Product consistency 2 1 - - 6 - 1 - - 1 7 - - 3 - - 4 1

Quality meets industry

standards 2 1 - - 6 - 1 - - 1 7 - - 4 - - 4 1

Quality exceeds industry

standards 2 1 - - 6 - 1 - - 1 7 - - 4 - - 4 1

Product range 2 1 - 1411- - - 8 - 13 - - 5 -

Reliability of supply 2 1 - 2211- -26 - 22 - 221

Supplier prequalification 3 - - 2 4 - 1 - - 2 6 - 1 3 - 1 4 -

Technical support/service 3 - - 2 4 - 1 - - 2 5 1 1 3 - 1 4 -

Lower U.S. transportation

costs 2 1 - 1 4 1 1 - - 3 5 - 1 3 - 4 1 -

Viscosity 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 - - - 8 - 1 3 - - 5 -

Note.--S = U.S. product superior, C = U.S. and foreign products comparable, I = U.S. product inferior.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-23

U.S. purchasers were also asked to make country-of-origin comparisons among subject and

nonsubject countries indicating for each factor whether PVA from one country was superior, comparable,

or inferior to PVA from another country. A limited number of purchasers responded; comparisons

reported by responding purchasers are presented in table II-6. 

Table II-6

PVA: Purchasers’ comparisons of imported products

Factor

China vs. 

Germany

China vs. 

Singapore

Japan vs. 

Taiwan

Germany

vs. 

Taiwan

Japan vs. 

China

Japan vs. 

Germany

S C I S C I S C I S C I S C I S C I

Availability - - 1 - 1 - 1 - - 1111- - -1-

Availability of preferred type - - 1 - 1 - 1 - - 1111 ----1

Delivery terms - - 1 - 1 - 1 - - 1 2 - 1 - - - 1 -

Delivery time - - 1 - - - - 1 - 1 2 - - 1 - - - 1

Discounts offered 1 - - - - -1- -21-1-1- -

Extension of credit - - 1 - 1 - 1 - - - 3 - 1 - - 1 - -

Hydrolysis - - 1 - 1 - - 1 - - 3 - 1 - - - 1 -

Lower price 1 - - - - 1 - - 1 - 2 1 - - 1 1 - -

Minimum quantity

requirements - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 3 - - 1 - - 1 -

Packaging - 1 - - - 1 1 - - - 3 - - 1 - - 1 -

Product consistency - - 1 - - 1 1 - - 1 2 - 1 - - - 1 -

Quality meets industry

standards - - 1 - 1 - 1 - - 1 2 - 1 - - - 1 -

Quality exceeds industry

standards - - 1 - 1 - 1 - - 1 2 - 1 - - - 1 -

Product range - - 1 - 1 - - 1 - 1 2 - 1 ----1

Reliability of supply - - 1 - 1 - 1 - - 1 2 - 1 ----1

Supplier prequalification - - 1 - 1 - 1 - - 1 2 - 1 - - - 1 -

Technical support/service - - 1 - - 1 1 - - 1 2 - 1 - - - 1 -

Lower U.S. transportation

costs - 1 - 1 - - 1 - - 3 - - 1 - - 1 -

Viscosity - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 3 - - 1 - - 1 -

Note.--S = First country listed product superior, C = Both products comparable, I = First country listed inferior.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 63 The elasticity responses in this section refer to changes that could occur within 12 months, unless otherwise

indicated. 

 64 Solutia prehearing brief, appendix 7, p. 1. Solutia also noted that “it is also worth noting that just as U.S.

producers might shift some export shipments into the U.S. market in response to hypothetically higher U.S. prices,

the reverse is equally true...That is, in response to any reduction in price within the U.S. market, the U.S. industry

would shift supply into the export market. Ibid., p. 1.

II-24

Producers and importers were asked to assess how often differences other than price were

significant in sales of PVA from the United States, subject countries, and nonsubject countries (table II7). Generally, U.S. producers reported that differences other than price were never significant and

importers reported such differences to be sometimes or never significant, except with respect to Taiwan.

Table II-7

PVA: U.S. firms’ perceived significance of differences other than price between U.S.-produced and

imported product

*******

In their questionnaire responses, DuPont and *** provided additional comments on the perceived

significance of differences other than price between U.S.-produced and imported product; these

comments are presented in the following tabulation.

* * * * * * *

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

This section discusses elasticity estimates. Parties were requested to provide comments; these are

addressed where appropriate. 

U.S. Supply Elasticity63

The domestic supply elasticity for PVA measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by U.S.

producers to changes in the U.S. market price for PVA. The elasticity of domestic supply depends on

factors such as the availability of inputs, the level of excess capacity, the ease with which producers can

alter capacity, producers’ ability to shift to and from production in other products, the existence of

inventories, and the availability of alternative markets for U.S.-produced PVA.

In the short term, PVA producers are likely to respond to changes in price with at least moderate

changes in the quantity shipped to the U.S. market. Supply responsiveness is enhanced by possible

available capacity, the quantity of inventories on hand, and a large amount of exports, but limited by the

presence of long-term contracts. A domestic supply elasticity in the range of 3 to 5 is suggested.

Celanese and DuPont made no comments on the staff’s domestic supply elasticity. Solutia stated

that “the staff’s estimate of the range within which the U.S. PVA industry’s supply elasticity is like to fall

is reasonable.”64 
 65 Solutia prehearing brief, appendix 7, p. 1.

 66 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject

imports and the domestic like product to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch

from the U.S. product to the subject product (or vice versa) when prices change.

 67 Solutia prehearing brief, appendix 7, p. 1.

II-25

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for PVA measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity demanded to

a change in the U.S. market price of PVA. This estimate depends on factors discussed earlier, such as the

existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products, as well as the component share of

PVA in the production of any downstream product. A demand elasticity in the range of -0.5 to -1.5 is

suggested. 

Celanese and DuPont made no comments on the staff’s domestic supply elasticity. Solutia stated

that “the staff’s estimated demand elasticity is reasonable in characterizing likely short run market

adjustment, though in our view the true value is likely to be in the middle to higher end of the range.”65

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution largely depends upon the degree to which there is an overlap of

competition between U.S.-produced and imported PVA, and the extent of product differentiation.66

Product differentiation, in turn, depends on such factors as physical characteristics (e.g., formulations and

quality) and conditions of sale (e.g., delivery lead times, reliability of supply, technical support/services,

etc.). The elasticity of substitution between the imported domestic PVA and that from China, Japan, and

Korea is estimated to be in the range of 2 to 4.

 Celanese and DuPont made no comments on the staff’s substitution elasticity. Solutia stated that

this range is too high and noted that a more appropriate estimate would place the elasticity of substitution

in a range of 1.5 to 2.5, or alternatively, the value is likely to be at the lower end of the staff estimated

range.67
 
 1

 The data contained in this section have been updated to include Solutia’s revisions submitted on February 17,

2009.

 2

 Hearing transcript (open session), p. 16 (Purvis).

 3

 Hearing transcript (open session), pp. 26-27 (Korte).

 4

 Hearing transcript (open session), p. 131 (Feast).

 5

 Hearing transcript (open session), pp. 23 and 78 (Purvis). 

 6

 Hearing transcript (open session), p. 23 (Purvis). Celanese contends that ***. Celanese/DuPont’s posthearing

brief, p. 47 and exhibit I.

 7

 Hearing transcript (open session), p. 56 (Korte).

 8

 Ibid.

 9

 Hearing transcript (open session), pp. 144-145 (Berezo) and p. 136 (Feast).

III-1

PART III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

OVERVIEW

Background

Information in this section is based on the questionnaire responses of three producers that

accounted for all U.S. production during 2007.1

 Celanese produces PVA in Calvert City, KY, and

Pasadena, TX, for commercial sales and for internal consumption.2

 DuPont produces PVA in La Porte,

TX, also for commercial sales and for internal consumption.3

 Solutia produces PVA in Springfield, MA,

and Trenton, MI, exclusively for internal consumption.4

Changes Experienced in Operations

Domestic producers were asked to indicate whether their firm had experienced any plant

openings, relocations, expansions, acquisitions, consolidation, closures, or prolonged shutdowns because

of strikes or equipment failure; curtailment of production because of shortages of materials or other

reasons including revision of labor agreements (including pension or health care obligations of retirees or

current employees); or any other change in the character of their operations or organization relating to the

production of PVA since 2003. All three domestic producers indicated that they had experienced some

change in the character of their operations since 2003. The domestic producers’ responses to this

question are detailed in table III-1. 

In 2007, Celanese experienced a force majeure event resulting from a reactor failure at its acetic

acid production unit.5

 Although Celanese’s acetic acid production unit reportedly represents about 10

percent of global production capacity and its failure occurred at a time when the industry was completely

sold out, Celanese was still able to recycle its acetic acid chemistry back into its VAM and PVA

operations.6

 In 2008, DuPont experienced a force majeure event as a result of the impact of Hurricane

Ike.7

 DuPont’s La Porte production facility was idled for three weeks, but by November 14, 2008, was

again running at full capacity.8

Finally, although Solutia did not experience production outages, the company did face challenges

maintaining its supply of PVA during the period covered by the declarations of force majeure. Indeed,

representatives for Solutia testified at the Commission’s hearing that the company came “perilously

close” to having to shut down production lines and layoff U.S. workers.9

 
 10 *** *** producer questionnaire response, section IV-8. Staff followed up and ***. E-mail from ***,

December 9, 2008. After the hearing, Staff followed up with ***. E-mail from ***, February 5, 2009.

 11 ***. *** producer questionnaire response, exhibit 1. ***. *** producer questionnaire response, section I-8,

attachments 4, 5, 6, and 7.

 12 The domestic industry provided up-to-date production and capacity data for the fourth quarter 2007 and 2008

periods. Capacity levels were *** pounds in the fourth quarter of 2008, compared to *** pounds in the fourth

quarter of 2007. Production levels were *** pounds in the fourth quarter of 2008, compared to *** pounds in the

fourth quarter of 2007, while capacity utilization was *** percent, compared to *** percent in the preceding year. 

The fourth quarter *** in production levels were attributed to ***. Celanese and DuPont’s filing on February 17,

2009, pp. 2-6 and hearing transcript (open session), p. 28 (Korte).

 13 Hearing transcript (open session), pp. 58-61 (Greenwald) (Korte) (Purvis) and hearing transcript (open session),

pp. 115-116 (Purvis) (Korte).

III-2

Table III-1

PVA: Changes in the character of U.S. operations

* * * * * * *

Anticipated Changes in Existing Operations

The Commission requested that domestic producers provide a copy of their company business

plans or other internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze expected future market conditions for

PVA. One domestic producer initially reported that it did not have any company business plans or other

internal documents concerning PVA,10 two domestic producers indicated that they possess such

materials.11 Table III-2 presents U.S. producers’ anticipated changes to their U.S. operations. 

Table III-2

PVA: Anticipated changes in U.S. operations

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

The Commission requested information on PVA capacity and production from PVA producers. 

Their data on PVA capacity, production, and capacity utilization are presented in table III-3. Total U.S.

capacity increased from 2003 to 2004 by *** percent and from 2004 to 2005 by *** percent. Total U.S.

capacity remained relatively stable thereafter.12 The level of capacity utilization for PVA, as reported by

responding domestic producers, remained fairly consistent throughout the period for which data were

collected, fluctuating between *** percent and *** percent except in 2005, when capacity utilization

reached a high of *** percent. At the hearing, however, counsel for both Celanese and DuPont

acknowledged that the production facilities were producing all the PVA they could during the period

covered by force majeure events.13 

Table III-3

PVA: U.S. PVA producers’ total capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2003-07, JanuarySeptember 2007, and January-September 2008

* * * * * * *
 14 Celanese’s producer questionnaire response, section II-2. ***. E-mail from ***, January 6, 2009.

 15 *** DuPont’s producer questionnaire response, section II-8. 

 16 Celanese’s producer questionnaire response, section II-6 and hearing transcript (open session) pp. 23-24

(Purvis).

 17 Celanese’s producer questionnaire response, section II-6.

 18 DuPont’s producer questionnaire response, section II-6.

 19 It will invest in projects that ***. DuPont’s producer questionnaire response, section II-6.

 20 DuPont’s producer questionnaire response, section II-6.

 21 Solutia’s producer questionnaire response, section II-6.

 22 Solutia’s producer questionnaire response, section II-6.

 23 Hearing transcript (open session), pp. 133-134 (Feast).

 24 Celanese’s producer questionnaire response, section II-7, DuPont’s producer questionnaire response, section II7, and Solutia’s producer questionnaire response, section II-7.

III-3

During 2003 through 2005, Celanese ***,14 *** its capacity in 2004 and 2005 by *** and ***

pounds, respectively. After 2005 Celanese’s capacity ***. DuPont’s capacity *** in 2004 by ***

pounds and ***. In 2006, DuPont’s capacity *** by *** pounds. Solutia’s capacity *** throughout the

period for which data were collected. *** domestic producers reported *** production levels in 2005.

*** production fell by *** percent and *** percent, respectively in January-September 2008 when

compared to January-September 2007.15

Constraints on Capacity

The Commission asked domestic producers to report constraints on their capacity to produce

PVA. Celanese characterized the PVA industry as capital intensive with high fixed costs.16 Celanese

identified three physical constraints to capacity: ***.17 DuPont reported that, although it has improved its

production process by ***, it would need *** to increase its production.18 It also stated that the ***

performance of its PVA business means that it ***.19 Moreover, DuPont stated that it is only able to

produce ***.20 Solutia reported that its constraints on capacity *** so that now both its plants are

producing ***.21 However, in order to create more PVA it would need ***.22 At the hearing, Solutia’s

representative provided three reasons why Solutia chose to add PVB production capacity without adding

corresponding PVA production capacity. First, Solutia’s strategic goal is to grow the overall PVB

business which it can only achieve by growing sales of PVB and expanding PVB resin and film capacity. 

Second, the economic scale for a PVA plant is approximately 90 million pounds and Solutia does not

demand that much PVA; therefore, it would have excess PVA and would need to enter the merchant PVA

business. Third, Solutia is a world leader in PVB but not PVA.23

All three domestic producers reported that they are unable to produce any alternative products

utilizing the same equipment or labor.24

U.S. PRODUCERS’ DOMESTIC SHIPMENTS, COMPANY TRANSFERS, AND EXPORT

SHIPMENTS

As detailed in table III-4, the quantity of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments increased by ***

percent from 2003 to 2004, by *** percent from 2004 to 2005, and by *** percent from 2006 to 2007, for

a net increase of *** percent over 2003 through 2007. U.S. shipments decreased by *** percent from

2005 to 2006 and were *** percent lower in January-September 2008 than in January-September 2007. 
 25 During January-September 2008, U.S. producers’ U.S. commercial shipments by end use and corresponding

shares of total U.S. shipments were as follows: ***.

 During January-September 2008, U.S. producers’ exports by end use and corresponding shares of total exports

were as follows: ***.

 26 The domestic industry provided up-to-date shipment data for the fourth quarter of 2007 and 2008 periods. The

average unit values of U.S. shipments were $*** in the fourth quarter of 2008, compared to *** in the fourth quarter

or 2007.

 27 The domestic industry provided up-to-date shipment data for the fourth quarter 2007 and 2008 periods. U.S.

commercial shipments were *** pounds lower in the fourth quarter of 2008 than in the fourth quarter 2007. U.S.

internal consumption was *** pounds lower in the fourth quarter 2008 than in the fourth quarter 2007. U.S. export

shipments to related firms were *** pound lower in the fourth quarter 2008 than in the fourth quarter 2007. U.S.

export shipments for commercial use were *** pounds lower in the fourth quarter 2008 than in the fourth quarter

2007. 

 28 Korea imposed a duty on imports of PVA from the United States of 33.39 percent from December 12, 2006

through December 11, 2009. http://www.ktc.go.kr/en/kboard_child/list.jsp?bm=86&pg=3, retrieved February 19,

2009.

 29 During January-September 2008, U.S. producers’ internal consumption for PVB production accounted for ***

percent of total U.S. internal consumption. The remainder of U.S. producers’ internal consumption consisted of ***.

 30 ***. E-mail from ***, January 5, 2009. ***. Ibid. ***. E-mail from ***, January 6, 2009. ***. Ibid. ***. 

Ibid. 

III-4

U.S. shipments for commercial use were consistently the largest component of total U.S. shipments.25

The value of U.S. shipments increased by *** percent from 2003 through 2007. In January-September

2008, the value of U.S. shipments was *** percent higher than in January-September 2007. The unit

values of U.S. shipments rose steadily from *** per pound in 2003 to *** per pound in 2007. The unit

value of U.S. shipments reported for January-September 2008 reached *** per pound.26 In JanuarySeptember 2008, internal consumption accounted for *** percent of total shipments,27 while exports

accounted for *** percent.28 29 For more detailed information, refer to appendix E, which presents each

U.S. producer’s shipments by type.

Table III-4

PVA: U.S. producers’ shipments, by type, 2003-07, January-September 2007, and JanuarySeptember 2008

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Data collected in these reviews on domestic producers’ end-of-period inventories of PVA are

presented in table III-5. The domestic industry’s inventories of PVA fell overall during the period for

which data were collected, with the lowest level of inventories reported for year end 2007. Inventories

held at the end of September 2008 were *** than for the same time period in 2007. Inventories, relative

to total shipments, decreased from a high of *** percent in 2003 to a low of *** percent in 2007. For the

period January-September 2008, however, the ratio of inventories to total shipments was *** percent, as

compared to *** percent in January-September 2007.30
 31 ***. Solutia’s purchaser questionnaire response, section II-2 and Hearing transcript (open session), p. 131

(Feast). 

 32 DuPont reports that ***. Celanese/DuPont’s posthearing brief, pp. 44-45. Solutia reports that ***. Solutia’s

posthearing brief, pp. A2-A3. 

 33 ***. E-mail from ***, January 5, 2009. ***. Ibid.

 34 At the hearing, DuPont stated that it halted PVA production from early December 2008-late January 2009. 

During this production shutdown, however, it continued to employ all the plant employees. Hearing transcript (open

session), pp. 28, 82 (Korte).

III-5

Table III-5

PVA: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2003-07, January-September 2007, and JanuarySeptember 2008

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

Table III-6 presents direct imports by U.S. producers, along with their production of PVA. ***. 

In addition, ***. ***. ***. Solutia reported that it purchased PVB-grade PVA only from Celanese and

DuPont.31 32

Table III-6

PVA: U.S. producers’ imports, 2003-07, January-September 2007, and January-September 2008

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Data provided by U.S. producers on the number of production and related workers (“PRWs”)

engaged in the production of PVA, the total hours worked by such workers, and wages paid to such

PRWs during the period for which data were collected in these reviews are presented in table III-7. After

reported highs of *** PRWs working *** hours in 2003, the numbers of workers and hours worked

decreased by *** percent and *** percent, respectively, by 2007.33 Rising productivity and lower wage

rates resulted in decreased unit labor costs between 2003 and 2007. Employment and wages were higher

in January-September 2008 than in January-September 2007. Wage rates, in contrast, were lower, but

could not fully offset the impact of reduced productivity in January-September 2008 relative to JanuarySeptember 2007, resulting in an overall higher unit labor cost.34 

Table III-7

PVA: U.S. producers’ employment-related indicators, 2003-07, January-September 2007, and

January-September 2008

* * * * * * *
 35 Commission staff verified Celanese’s questionnaire response and the results of that verification are

incorporated herein (verification report, memorandum INV-FF-153, December 17, 2008). ***. 

 36 Solutia corrected its data on February 17, 2009, due to a methodological change in how the firm “recognized”

its “sales” of PVA (***). This change affected the quantity and value of its internal consumption, certain costs, and

operating income or loss in all periods for which data were collected, as well as for October-December 2007 and

October-December 2008. Although the underlying data changed, ***. Solutia submission dated February 17, 2009.

 37 Witnesses for Celanese and DuPont testified that the firms were able to gain market share and slowly raise

prices once the orders were in effect. Price increases were moderated because traditional applications (e.g., textiles)

had either moved offshore or had declined. Hearing transcript (open session), pp. 17, 33, and 46 (Purvis and Korte).

 38 The byproducts are ***.

III-6

FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS

Background

The same three firms, Celanese, DuPont,35 and Solutia,36 that provided production and shipment

data reported usable financial data on their operations on PVA. Each of these firms has a December 31

fiscal year end. These data accounted for all known U.S. production of PVA in 2007.

Total PVA Operations

Results of U.S. firms’ operations on PVA are briefly summarized here. Total net sales quantities

increased *** between 2003 and 2004, declined *** between 2005 and 2006, and then *** in 2007. 

Commercial sales, transfers to related firms, and internal consumption all increased, although commercial

sales exhibited the largest net increase. Total net sales values also increased in each category between

2003 and 2007, albeit more steadily than sales quantity between the yearly periods, reflecting greater

volume in 2004 and rising average unit values during 2004-07.37 Commercial sales were consistently the

largest component of total sales by the U.S. PVA industry, accounting for approximately *** of the

quantity sold during the period for which data were collected. Raw material costs increased in absolute

terms and at a more rapid pace than sales (thus, the ratio of raw materials to sales increased, and the perunit value of raw materials increased more than did the similar measure of sales). Increases in raw

materials were due to the increasing costs of petroleum-based products and natural gas during the period

reviewed. Direct labor was relatively stable while other factory costs declined irregularly from 2003 to

2006 and increased between 2006 and 2007. The industry’s total net cost of goods sold (“COGS”)

increased in absolute terms with the increases in volume and raw materials, rising more rapidly than did

sales (as reflected by the higher per-unit value and ratio of COGS to sales) between most periods. Each

firm recycles, or recovers, a part of its raw material inputs. These byproducts,38 valued at fair market

value, were deducted from COGS. Increasing byproduct revenues moderated somewhat the increase in

COGS between 2003 and 2007; the industry’s total net COGS after byproducts was fairly stable on ratioto-sales basis and the per-unit value of COGS did not increase by the same amount as sales. The industry

recorded a gross profit in each year. Selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses declined

from a period high in 2003 to 2006 and then increased *** from 2006 to 2007. The industry recorded

operating losses during 2003-05 (the operating loss was greatest in 2003, declining thereafter). On the

other hand, operating profit was greatest in 2006 and declined in 2007. Net income before taxes was

negative in each full year period except 2006; cash flow was positive in each period except 2004 and

2005.

Total net sales quantity was lower in January-September 2008 than in January-September 2007,

but sales value was higher, reflecting higher per-unit sales values in the most recent period. Total net
 39 Each firm provided financial data for October-December 2007 and October-December 2008. On an aggregated

basis, sales quantity and value were lower in October-December 2008 than in October-December 2007, by ***

percent and *** percent, respectively, at *** and $***. The three firms combined recorded an operating *** in

October-December 2008 compared with a *** in the same period in 2007. The average unit value of total net sales

was higher at $*** per pound in October-December 2008 compared to $*** per pound in the same period in 2007. 

Fourth quarter data are discussed by firm later in this section of the report.

 40 For a discussion of individual company profitability, see Celanese/DuPont posthearing brief, Part II, pp. 9-11. 

DuPont’s ***. See also, hearing transcript (open session), p. 41 (Korte) for a discussion of DuPont’s restructuring.

 41 A Celanese spokesman testified that the firm was able to institute orderly price increases following institution

of the order. Hearing transcript (open session), p. 17 (Purvis).

 42 Celanese ***. Production outages totaled *** during all of 2007 of which *** was incurred during the

November 2007 power outage at Calvert City, KY. Celanese also reported production outages during 2008 totaling

*** of which *** was incurred during the period of October-December 2008. Celanese attributed ***. 

Celanese/DuPont submission of February 17, 2009. “Fixed costs,” which are typically classified in other factory

costs, continue to accrue during periods of outage, and are included in the fully accumulated cost of the product. As

a result of ***. Celanese’s questionnaire response, II-8. With respect to hedging of natural gas, Celanese stated

***. E-mail to staff from ***, February 13, 2009.

III-7

COGS after byproduct credit was higher in January-September 2008 than in January-September 2007,

however, reflecting *** higher raw material costs and other factory costs, and the industry recorded a loss

on total PVA operations. Net income before taxes was negative in both interim periods although cash

flow was positive.39 These data for the industry are shown in table III-8, while table III-9 provides firmby-firm data on the results of operations on PVA.40

Table III-8

PVA: Results of operations of U.S. firms, fiscal years 2003-07, January-September 2007, and

January-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Table III-9

PVA: Results of operations of U.S. firms, by firm, fiscal years 2003-07, January-September 2007,

and January-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Celanese, the *** producer of the three reporting firms, provided data for ***. The firm’s sales

quantity increased from 2003 to 2004 and remained *** through 2007. With an average *** cents per

pound increase in sales value, total sales values increased *** between 2003 and 2007.41 Although sales

quantity was lower in January-September 2008 than in the same period in 2008, higher per-unit sales

values led to increased sales values between the interim periods. Before deduction of byproduct credit,

COGS increased in dollar terms on a yearly basis and between the interim periods, driven by higher sales

volume and higher raw material costs. However, some of the increase in raw material costs was

moderated by stable labor and lower other factory costs.42 When the byproduct credit is considered,

COGS net of the byproduct credit increased in dollar terms, but declined as a ratio to sales and on a perunit basis from 2003 to 2006; these measures were higher in 2007, and were higher again in JanuarySeptember 2008 from January-September 2007. The firm’s SG&A expenses declined *** between 2003
 43 During October-December 2008, Celanese’s sales quantity and value, *** were lower by *** percent and ***

percent, respectively, from the same period in 2007. Celanese recorded an operating *** of sales in OctoberDecember 2008 versus a *** of sales in the same period in 2007. In October-December 2008, total net sales unit

value was $*** per pound, while the operating *** per pound a year earlier. Per-unit raw material costs were higher

in October-December 2008 than in the same period in 2007, $*** per pound compared to $*** per pound. E-mail to

staff from ***, February 13, 2009. Celanese stated the following with respect to its input VAM costs: ***. E-mail

to staff from ***, February 24, 2009. Celanese also stated that its SG&A expenses were ***. E-mail to staff from

***, February 13, 2009. As noted earlier, Celanese reported production outages for *** during the fourth quarter of

2008 compared with a production outage of *** during the fourth quarter of 2007. Celanese/DuPont submission of

February 17, 2009.

 44 With respect to raw material cost hedging DuPont stated that ***. E-mail to staff from ***, February 13, 2009.

 45 DuPont classifies the results of its natural gas hedging in “other factory costs.” The firm stated that ***. Email to staff from ***, February 13, 2009. DuPont confirmed that it ***. E-mail to staff from ***, February 24,

2009.

 46 Hurricane Ike affected DuPont’s production unit at La Porte, TX, ***. DuPont also conducted maintenance

***. DuPont’s questionnaire response, II-2 and II-8. It also ***. Its production outage was *** in 2007 (including

*** during October-December 2007) and *** from November 3, 2008 to January 30, 2009 of ***. Celanese/DuPont

submission, February 17, 2009. During these periods, fixed costs accrue and are included in the fully accumulated

cost of the product.

 47 DuPont’s sales in October-December 2008 were ***, which were less than in the same period in 2007 by ***,

respectively. Its operating ***. The unit value of its total net sales was higher in October-December 2008 at $***

per pound compared with $*** per pound in the same period in 2007, as was its *** at $*** versus $*** per pound. 

With regard to raw material costs, DuPont stated that “while ***. Also, DuPont’s ***. E-mail to staff from ***,

February 13, 2009. As noted earlier, DuPont ***. E-mail to staff from ***, February 24, 2009.

 48 Hearing transcript (open session), p. 145 (Berezo). 

 49 Solutia’s prehearing brief, app. 4 (report of ***), p. 4. Solutia’s argument is that with ***. Solutia also argued

***. Hearing transcript (closed session), pp. 234-235, and 247 (***). Solutia provided ***.

 50 Solutia’s reported internal consumption was ***. The average unit value of its internal consumption was $***

in October-December 2008 compared to $*** in the period one year earlier. Raw material costs were *** in

October-December 2008 than in the same period one year earlier, leading to a $***. Operating *** in OctoberDecember 2008 compared with *** in the same period in 2007. Solutia’s submission dated February 17, 2009. As

noted earlier, the data in the submission of February 17, 2009, corrected data submitted with Solutia’s posthearing

brief. Changes in the data ***. 

III-8

and 2007 and were *** higher in January-September 2008 compared with the same period in 2007. 

Celanese reported operating ***.43

DuPont, the *** largest producer, reported data for its trade sales and internal consumption of

PVA for PVB. Its sales quantity ***44 but ***45 ***.46 These measures ***.47

Solutia, the *** of the three producers, reported data for its internal consumption of PVA for

PVB. Its consumption increased *** between the years and the two interim periods for which data were

collected, largely reflecting increasing volume between the full year periods and increasing unit value

between the interim periods. Solutia estimated the value of its internal consumption based on ***, as

noted earlier. The rationale for this methodology was stated as follows: ***; its PVA differs qualitatively

from PVA purchased from Celanese or DuPont, and is consumed on equipment dedicated to its own

PVA;48 and the use of “market prices would ***.”49 It also reported ***.50

Raw material costs are a large part in industry total COGS and they vary with the fluctuations in

petroleum products and natural gas, used as inputs and for processing. Raw material costs were offset to

a great degree by the fact that these firms are able to recycle some of their key inputs. Overhead costs

also are high for this industry, and are accounted for by utility and environmental costs such as steam,
 51 Celanese and DuPont ***. 

 52 Celanese/DuPont posthearing brief, part II, p. 37.

III-9

process costs, health and environmental remediation, and plant administrative costs (including salaries,

maintenance, and depreciation).

Merchant Market Operations on PVA

The Commission’s questionnaire did not request firms to provide data separately for their

merchant market operations from their internal consumption or their transfers. Hence, Commission staff

calculated the cost data shown in table III-10 from the total data reported.51

Table III-10

PVA: Results of U.S. firms on their merchant market operations, fiscal years 2003-07, JanuarySeptember 2007, and January-September 2008

* * * * * * *

The merchant market data in table III-10 (calculated for Celanese and DuPont) generally follow the

data shown in table III-8 for total operations of the three firms; differences are attributable to different

unit sales values and the allocation of proportionate costs. Celanese’s ***. DuPont’s ***.52

Variance Analysis

The variance analysis showing the effects of prices and volume on U.S. producers’ net sales of PVA,

and of costs and volume on their total expenses, is presented in table III-11. The information for this

variance analysis is derived from table III-8, but differs in that only total net sales are shown. The

variance analysis provides an assessment of changes in profitability as related to changes in pricing, cost,

and volume. The variance analysis is summarized at the bottom of the table and shows that the increase

in operating income from 2003 to 2007 is attributable to the favorable price variance (higher unit prices)

that was much greater than the unfavorable net cost/expense variance (higher unit costs). Comparing

January-September 2008 and the same period in 2007, the favorable price variance was less than the

unfavorable net cost/expense variance (higher unit prices were outweighed by higher unit costs) and the

industry’s operating profit was lower. The net volume variance generally is unfavorable for those periods

in which sales volume increased because it was more costly to produce and sell that volume; it generally

was favorable for those periods in which sales quantity declined, such as between 2004 and 2005, and

between 2005 and 2006.

Table III-11

PVA: Variance analysis on U.S. firms’ operations, fiscal years 2003-07, and January-September

2007-08

* * * * * * *
 53 Hearing transcript (open session), p. 41 (Korte).

III-10

Assets and Return on Investment

The Commission’s questionnaire requested data on assets used in the production, warehousing,

and sale of PVA to compute return on investment (“ROI”) for 2003 to 2007 (table III-12). The data for

total net sales and operating losses are from table III-8. Operating income was divided by total assets,

resulting in ROI. 

Table III-12

PVA: Value of assets used in production, warehousing, and sales, and return on investment, fiscal

years 2003-07

* * * * * * *

 ROI generally followed operating income (discussed earlier in connection with table III-8). The

value of total assets (particularly non-current assets of property, plant, and equipment) fell from 2003 to

2005, following ***.

 Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses

U.S. producers’ data on their capital expenditures, research and development (“R&D”) expenses,

and depreciation expenses for their operations on PVA are shown in table III-13. 

Table III-13

PVA: U.S. firms’ capital expenditures, research and development expenses, and depreciation

expenses, fiscal years 2003-07, January-September 2007, and January-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Celanese’s capital expenditures were ***. DuPont’s capital expenditures have been focused on

improving energy efficiency in its plants.53 

Celanese’s capital expenditures ***. On the other hand, DuPont’s capital expenditures ***. 

Generally speaking, when capital expenditures are less than depreciation, it is a sign that a firm or the

industry is not reinvesting in itself and replacing its productive assets.
 1

 Five firms confirmed that they imported excluded forms of PVA exclusively. Two firms reported that they did

not import PVA during the period for which data were collected. Four firms did not respond to the Commission’s

questionnaire. 

 2

 The HTS classification for PVA includes both subject PVA and nonsubject PVA, the latter category consisting

of 15 forms of PVA hydrolyzed in excess of 80 percent excluded by Commerce as well as all PVA hydrolyzed at 80

percent or lower.

 3

 Questionnaire responses were received from ***. 

 4

 Israel, Italy, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom were excluded from the category “other countries”

following confirmation that imports originating in those countries are almost all excluded forms of PVA. The data

for the remaining nonsubject countries are compiled from official Commerce statistics.

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS AND THE FOREIGN INDUSTRY

U.S. IMPORTS

The Commission sent questionnaires to 24 firms believed to have imported PVA between January

2003 and September 2008. Questionnaire responses were received from 13 firms.1

 U.S. import data are

based on official import statistics for all sources, except for Japan for which questionnaire data were

utilized due to the relatively large amount of U.S. imports of nonsubject (excluded) PVA from Japan.2 3

Firms responding to the Commission’s questionnaire accounted for substantially all subject imports from

China and Japan. There were no known imports from Korea in 2007, but based on the last year for which

there were sizeable subject imports, 2003, there is *** percent coverage of the subject imports from

Korea. Data regarding U.S. imports appear in table IV-1.4

With respect to questionnaire coverage of nonsubject countries, there is almost complete

coverage for the leading nonsubject country, Taiwan. Furthermore, there is high coverage for each of the

other principal nonsubject countries, Germany, Singapore, and Spain. No importers reported entering or

withdrawing PVA from foreign trade zones or bonded warehouses. In addition, no importers reported

imports of PVA under the temporary importation under bond program. 
IV-2

Table IV-1

PVA: U.S. imports, by sources, 2003-07, January-September 2007, and January-September 2008

Source

Calendar year January - September

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

China 5,869 5,519 6,155 6,662 4,539 4,329 1,295

Japan *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea 2,014 126 4 44 0 0 0

 Subject subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan 23,539 28,117 20,777 23,354 26,127 18,207 24,903

Other countries 4,871 5,120 7,780 10,413 11,346 8,397 5,816

 Nonsubject subtotal 28,410 33,236 28,557 33,767 37,473 26,604 30,720

Total *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars)

China 4,011 3,795 4,521 4,973 3,813 3,645 1,454

Japan *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea 1,500 114 44 85 0 0 0

 Subject subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan 16,402 19,048 16,654 19,340 24,012 16,395 27,466

Other countries 4,481 5,009 7,795 9,876 11,807 8,494 7,454

 Nonsubject subtotal 20,883 24,057 24,449 29,215 35,819 24,889 34,920

Total *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value (dollars per pound)

China $0.68 $0.69 $0.73 $0.75 $0.84 $0.84 $1.12

Japan *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea 0.74 0.90 10.17 1.93 (1

) (1) (1)

 Subject subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan 0.70 0.68 0.80 0.83 0.92 0.90 1.10

Other countries 0.92 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.04 1.01 1.28

 Nonsubject subtotal 0.74 0.72 0.86 0.87 0.96 0.94 1.14

Total *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
IV-3

Table IV-1 – Continued

PVA: U.S. imports, by sources, 2003-07, January-September 2007, and January-September 2008

Item

Calendar year January-September

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008

Share of quantity (percent)

China *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subject subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other countries *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Nonsubject subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

China *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subject subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other countries *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Nonsubject subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Ratio of import quantity to U.S. production (percent)

China *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subject subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other countries *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Nonsubject subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics and from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
IV-4

LEADING NONSUBJECT SOURCES OF IMPORTS

During the period for which data were collected, imports of PVA entered the United States from

several sources other than the three subject countries. The leading nonsubject suppliers are shown in

table IV-2. The total quantity of PVA imports from all nonsubject sources fluctuated during the period

for which data were collected, with a high recorded in 2007. Nonsubject imports were lowest in 2003 and

2005. Taiwan is by far the leading nonsubject country supplier. Imports from Taiwan in JanuarySeptember 2008 accounted for 81.1 percent of the quantity of nonsubject imports. 

Table IV-2

PVA: U.S. imports from leading nonsubject sources, 2003-07, January-September 2007, and JanuarySeptember 2008

Item

Calendar year January - September

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Germany 2,207 2,153 4,504 7,709 7,054 5,227 3,834

Singapore 909 1,314 1,189 1,135 2,465 1,781 1,639

Spain 1,662 1,524 1,794 1,354 1,137 854 122

Taiwan 23,539 28,117 20,777 23,354 26,127 18,207 24,903

All others1 94 128 293 214 690 536 220

Total

nonsubject 28,410 33,236 28,557 33,767 37,473 26,604 30,720

Value (1,000 dollars)

Germany 1,991 2,131 4,115 7,090 6,891 4,941 4,803

Singapore 746 998 1,035 1,064 2,578 1,782 2,067

Spain 1,692 1,740 2,161 1,496 1,701 1,289 322

Taiwan 16,402 19,048 16,654 19,340 24,012 16,395 27,466

All others1 52 140 485 226 637 483 262

Total

nonsubject 20,883 24,057 24,449 29,215 35,819 24,889 34,920

Unit value (dollars per pound)

Germany $0.90 $0.99 $0.91 $0.92 $0.98 $0.95 $1.25

Singapore 0.82 0.76 0.87 0.94 1.05 1.00 1.26

Spain 1.02 1.14 1.20 1.10 1.50 1.51 2.63

Taiwan 0.70 0.68 0.80 0.83 0.92 0.90 1.10

All others1 0.56 1.09 1.66 1.05 0.92 0.90 1.19

Total

nonsubject 0.74 0.72 0.86 0.87 0.96 0.94 1.14

 1 All others includes Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, India, Ireland, Mexico, Sweden, Switzerland, and

Thailand. The increase in imports from “all others” among nonsubject sources in 2007 is primarily attributable to PVA from France

and Canada.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.
 5

 The excluded forms of PVA are defined on page I-11 of this report.

IV-5

EXCLUDED FORMS OF PVA

U.S. imports of excluded forms of PVA5

 are shown by source in table IV-3. U.S. imports from

Japan comprised *** in each period for which data were collected.

Table IV-3 

PVA: U.S. imports of excluded forms, by source, 2003-07, January-September 2007, and JanuarySeptember 2008

Country

Calendar year January - September

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Japan *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Israel 0 84 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 1,112 1,133 999 1,354 1,222 838 1,169

Netherlands 50 126 42 22 110 108 127

United Kingdom 3,768 4,449 3,582 3,665 3,207 2,477 2,567

Total *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars)

Japan *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Israel 0 101 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 991 1,166 1,029 1,160 908 642 917

Netherlands 97 119 40 22 88 83 77

United Kingdom 6,492 7,593 6,139 6,291 5,819 4,437 4,431

Total *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value (dollars per pound)

Japan $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Israel (1

) 1.21 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Italy 0.89 1.03 1.03 0.86 0.74 0.77 0.79

Netherlands 1.93 0.95 0.95 0.99 0.80 0.77 0.61

United Kingdom 1.72 1.71 1.71 1.72 1.81 1.79 1.73

Total *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Not defined.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics and from data submitted in response to Commission

questionnaires.
 6

 Hearing transcript (open session), p. 105 (Greenwald).

 7

 Hearing transcript (open session), p. 211-212 (Shor).

 8

 Hearing transcript (open session), p. 211 (Shor).

 9

 Hearing transcript (open session), p. 141 (Berezo) and hearing transcript (open session), pp. 226-227 (Feast).

Solutia testified that the four largest producers of PVB are Solutia (U.S.), DuPont (U.S.), Sekisui (Japan), and

Kuraray (Japan). Hearing transcript (open session), pp. 225 (Staff) and hearing transcript (open session), p. 226

(Feast). Solutia further testified that it believed Kingboard to be the largest PVB producer in China and Chang Chun

to be the largest PVB producer in Taiwan. Hearing transcript (open session), p. 226 (Feast).

 10 Data regarding *** are presented in tables IV-10, IV-14, and IV-18. See also Polyvinyl Butyral, April 2007,

Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, pp. 580.1831 E-H and 580.1831 M. 

IV-6

CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS

In assessing whether subject imports are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic

like product with respect to cumulation, the Commission generally has considered the following four

factors: (1) the degree of fungibility, including specific customer requirements and other quality-related

questions; (2) presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets; (3) common channels of

distribution; and (4) simultaneous presence in the market. Channels of distribution and fungibility

(interchangeability) are discussed in Parts I and II of this report. Additional information concerning

fungibility, geographical markets, and simultaneous presence in the market is presented below.

At the hearing, Celanese and DuPont requested that the Commission exercise its discretion to

cumulate imports from all three of the subject countries.6

 Solutia argued that the Commission should not

exercise its discretion to cumulate imports from China contending that the Chinese industry is not export

oriented and is completely focused on supplying its domestic market.7

 Solutia did not argue that imports

from Korea and Japan should not be cumulated.8

Fungibility

Celanese and DuPont produce PVA for most major applications; in contrast, Solutia produces

PVA *** for PVB applications. One of the largest end use applications for PVA is PVB. Several of the

largest PVB producers worldwide (e.g., Solutia, DuPont, Kuraray, Kingboard, and Chang Chun) are

integrated backward and produce PVA for PVB production,9

 and each subject country currently produces

*** PVB-grade PVA.10 

Importers from subject countries state that they tend to concentrate their sales in certain end-use

products. Most importers import from only one country. The quantities and shares of PVA produced in

the United States and in each subject country that were sold for each major end use in the United States

during 2002, 2007, and January-September 2008 are shown in table IV-4. Table IV-5 shows the

quantities and shares of PVA by hydrolysis range for the United States and each of the subject countries

for 2002, 2007, and January-September 2008.

Table IV-4

PVA: Quantity and shares of production/shipments and imports, by country and by end uses,

2002, 2007, and January-September 2008

* * * * * * *
 11 Solutia internally consumes all the PVA it produces.

 12 Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

 13 Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

 14 SVW’s questionnaire response, section II-18-a.

 15 Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

 16 Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

 17 Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

 18 Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

 19 Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

 20 See Table IV-3.

 21 Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

IV-7

Table IV-5

PVA: Quantities of production/shipments and imports, by country and by hydrolysis levels, 2002,

2007, and January - September 2008

* * * * * * *

Geographic Markets

U.S. producers DuPont and Celanese reported that their sales were nationwide.11 In JanuarySeptember 2008, the two largest Customs districts for subject PVA entering the United States from China

were Charleston, SC, and Los Angeles, CA.12 Charleston’s share of the total imports from China was

73.7 percent and Los Angeles’s share of the total imports from China was 16.1 percent.13 Based on

questionnaire data all imports from China are subject forms of PVA.14 The three largest Customs districts

for all forms of PVA imported from Japan into the United States in January-September 2008 were

Houston-Galveston, TX, Los Angeles, CA, and New Orleans, LA.15 The Houston-Galveston district

represented 33.8 percent, the Los Angeles district represented 21.7 percent, and the New Orleans district

represented 12.7 percent.16 2003 was the last year in which a substantial amount of PVA was imported

into the United States from Korea.17 In that year, the three largest Customs districts for PVA from Korea

were Los Angeles, CA, Savannah, GA, and Charleston, SC.18 The Los Angeles district represented 54.1

percent, the Savannah district represented 21.3 percent, and the Charleston district represented 14.6

percent.19 Additional information on geographic markets may be found in Part V of this report.

 

Presence in the Market

After imposition of the orders, the presence of subject imports from Korea and Japan has been

limited. Japanese producers, however, shipped increasing quantities of nonsubject PVA.20 U.S. imports

from China, however, entered the U.S. market in 66 out of 69 months between January 2003 and

September 2008.21

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Data relating to U.S. importers’ inventories of PVA are presented in table IV-6. As the data

presented in table IV-6 illustrate, inventories of subject imports fluctuated greatly throughout the period

for which data were collected, with the lowest inventory level reported in 2005 and the highest inventory

level reported in 2006. Inventories were *** lower (*** percent) in January-September 2008 than they

were during the same period in 2007. Imported material from China accounted for *** the subject import
 22 Staff Report, INV-AA-125 (August 27, 2003), p. I-2.

 23 As previously reported, in 2002, three PVA shipments were made by firms other than SVW amounting to ***

pounds. The three shipping firms were ***. In addition, Customs records show an *** of *** pounds manufactured

by ***. *** stated that it was a provider of logistical services and did not submit a questionnaire response. Lastly,

Customs documents show *** possibly erroneous entries totaling *** pounds manufactured by ***. *** informed

Commerce that it did not show any exports of Chinese produced PVA to the United States. Staff Report, INV-AA056 (May 27, 2003), pp. IV-2 and IV-3.

 24 Solutia reported in its prehearing brief that two of the fourteen Chinese producers, Sinopec Beijing Dongfang

Petrochemical and Huiangxi Guangwei, are no longer in operation. Solutia’s prehearing brief, pp. 17-18. Solutia

provided further press releases as part of its posthearing brief submission detailing the two Chinese plant closings. 

Solutia’s posthearing brief, app. 21. See also “China’s smog shutdown,”

http://en.chinaelections.org/newsinfo.asp?newsid=15926, retrieved January 29, 2009.

 25 Polyvinyl Alcohols, March 2007, Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, p. 580.1811 Y.

IV-8

inventories. Inventory levels of nonsubject imports fluctuated during the period for which data were

collected. In several periods, inventories of imported material from Taiwan accounted for as much or

more than the inventories of imported material from all other sources.

Table IV-6

PVA: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2003-07, January-September

2007, and January-September 2008

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

Overview

In the original investigations the Commission collected data from SVW, the Chinese

manufacturer/exporter that accounted for *** of China’s reported exports of PVA to the United States

during 2000-02.22 23 In the current reviews, SVW has again provided data on its PVA operations. As

shown in table IV-7, SVW’s capacity has increased by about *** pounds since 2002. However, SVW’s

export share has increased by *** percentage points.

Table IV-7

PVA: Comparison of select SVW data, 2002 and 2007

* * * * * * *

While SVW has been a primary exporter of Chinese PVA to the U.S. market, it is only one of

approximately 14 firms believed to produce PVA in China.24 Between 2003 and 2006 (the most recent

year for which estimates are available), Chinese PVA production increased steadily from *** metric tons

(***) to *** metric tons (***), while capacity was estimated to be *** metric tons (***).25 During this
 26 Polyvinyl Alcohols, March 2007, Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, p. 580.1811 Y. See also

Global Trade Atlas (China was a net importer in 2003-04 and again in 2007, and a net exporter in 2005-06 and again

in 2008).

 27 The Chinese VAT tax rebate on PVA is 5 percent. Celanese/DuPont’s posthearing brief, p. 23 and Solutia’s

posthearing brief, p. A7.

 28 Polyvinyl Alcohols, March 2007, Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, p. 580.1811 Y.

 29 One publication stated that December 2008 market conditions were weak, with an average PVA plant

utilization rate at 30-40 percent. This same publication reported that Northeast Chemical will start-up a 40,000 tons

per annum (“tpa”) PVA unit in the second half of 2009, Changchun Chemical has plans to expand its PVA

production from 40,000 tpa to 80,000 tpa, Anhui Vinylon Works is expected to increase its capacity by 40,000 tpa at

the end of 2009, and Hunan Vinylon Works planned expansion to add 60,000 tpa to its PVA capacity has been

postponed. Tecnon OrbiChem, Chemical Business Focus: A Monthly Roundup and Analysis of the Key Factors

Shaping World Chemical Markets, issue no. 256, p. 2, January 8, 2009, contained in Celanese/DuPont’s prehearing

brief, exhibit 1.

 30 It has been reported that a producer in Taiwan, Chang Chun, opened a PVA plant in China in 2007. Solutia’s

prehearing brief, p. 25. See also Tecnon OrbiChem, Chemical Business Focus: A Monthly Roundup and Analysis of

the Key Factors Shaping World Chemical Markets, issue no. 256, p. 2, January 8, 2009, contained in

Celanese/DuPont’s prehearing brief, exhibit 1. 

 31 SVW’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-17. See also Polyvinyl Alcohols, March 2007,

Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, p. 580.1811 X.

 32 SVW’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-7.

 33 Export values reported by Global Trade Atlas for all countries (with the exception of the United States) are

reported as F.O.B. (free on board) foreign port values.

 34 SVW’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-13. Korea imposed a duty on imports of PVA from

China of 11.1-35.17 percent from December 12, 2006 through December 11, 2009. 

http://www.ktc.go.kr/en/kboard_child/list.jsp?bm=86&pg=3, retrieved February 19, 2009.

 35 On December 19, 2006, the European Union (“EU”) initiated an antidumping proceeding with regard to

imports of PVA from China. EC Regulation No. C 311, December 19, 2006. On September 17, 2007, the EU

imposed a provisional antidumping duty of 10.06 percent on imports from China. EC Regulation No. 1069,

September 17, 2007. On March 17, 2008, the EU terminated it antidumping proceeding concerning imports of PVA

from China. EC Regulation No. 227, March 17, 2008. 

IV-9

period of rising production, China is believed to have shifted from being a net importer of PVA to being a

net exporter of PVA.26 27 The four major Chinese producers are believed to be ***.28 29 30

PVA Operations

Table IV-8 presents data for reported production and shipments of PVA for China by SVW. 

SVW accounts for *** of China’s reported exports of PVA to the United States, however, it accounts for

only approximately *** percent of Chinese production of PVA.31 Internal consumption has increased ***

from 2003 to 2007. SVW’s share of exports to the United States *** throughout 2003 to 2006; however,

in 2007 SVW’s share of exports to the United States fell to *** percent, and continued to decline into

2008. SVW reported that it *** alternative products utilizing the same equipment or labor that it uses to

produce PVA.32 Finally, SVW reported that its exports of PVA (all reported Chinese exports of PVA are

shown in table IV-9)33 are subject to a 35.17 percent duty in Korea.34 In addition, the European Union

initiated an antidumping proceeding that resulted in the application of provisional duties but subsequently

terminated the proceeding.35
IV-10

Table IV-8

PVA: SVW’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2003-07, January-September 2007,

and January-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Table IV-9

PVA: China’s exports, by country, 2003-07 and January-September 2008

Source

Calendar year

JanuarySeptember

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Netherlands 16,696 18,625 17,635 20,863 16,878 18,164

Belgium 4,330 3,649 5,371 6,592 8,577 10,255

Italy 8,930 6,986 15,938 15,955 7,549 4,624

Pakistan 589 3,995 5,706 5,667 6,066 5,481

United States 6,086 5,287 5,693 6,273 4,255 206

Japan 11 21 4,045 5,504 3,975 9,026

Thailand 3,772 4,331 4,651 3,874 1,986 2,174

Turkey 262 1,535 1,845 3,089 1,883 1,899

France 1,452 734 2,749 3,644 1,509 3,733

Russia 2,533 1,770 1,969 1,490 1,115 280

India 248 641 545 1,384 1,115 1,271

Spain 2,148 1,360 2,693 2,129 1,093 973

Malaysia 82 268 653 1,012 1,009 1,984

United Kingdom 344 1,317 1,346 1,429 974 1,010

North Korea 894 875 911 946 825 705

All other 6,570 8,392 10,815 11,655 7,384 14,424

 Total 54,946 59,786 82,564 91,505 66,193 76,207

Value (1,000 dollars)

Netherlands 8,656 11,019 10,863 12,709 12,639 19,133

Belgium 2,271 2,130 3,656 4,369 6,708 11,835

Italy 5,006 4,335 10,461 9,721 5,723 5,202

Pakistan 352 2,425 4,061 4,049 5,139 6,579

United States 3,432 3,066 3,696 4,185 3,239 270

Japan 6 20 2,698 3,668 3,055 9,632

Thailand 2,013 2,602 3,193 2,727 1,632 2,591

Turkey 149 975 1,232 1,991 1,536 2,117

France 749 437 1,807 2,312 1,070 4,158

Russia 1,590 1,089 1,313 1,100 966 339

India 153 477 479 969 990 1,473

Spain 1,214 811 1,828 1,410 903 1,182

Malaysia 49 164 468 702 876 2,309

United Kingdom 186 791 914 934 758 1,096

North Korea 493 560 602 690 817 897

All other 3,687 5,194 7,574 8,297 6,404 17,542

 Total 30,005 36,095 54,845 59,834 52,454 86,356

Table continued on next page.
 36 Polyvinyl Alcohols, March 2007, Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, p. 580.1811 Y.

IV-11

Table IV-9 – Continued

PVA: China’s exports, by country, 2003-07 and January-September 2008.

Source

Calendar year

JanuarySeptember

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Unit value (dollars per pound)

Netherlands $0.52 $0.59 $0.62 $0.61 $0.75 $1.05

Belgium 0.52 0.58 0.68 0.66 0.78 1.15

Italy 0.56 0.62 0.66 0.61 0.76 1.13

Pakistan 0.60 0.61 0.71 0.71 0.85 1.20

United States 0.56 0.58 0.65 0.67 0.76 1.31

Japan 0.57 0.96 0.67 0.67 0.77 1.07

Thailand 0.53 0.60 0.69 0.70 0.82 1.19

Turkey 0.57 0.64 0.67 0.64 0.82 1.12

France 0.52 0.59 0.66 0.63 0.71 1.11

Russia 0.63 0.62 0.67 0.74 0.87 1.21

India 0.62 0.74 0.88 0.70 0.89 1.16

Spain 0.56 0.60 0.68 0.66 0.83 1.21

Malaysia 0.60 0.61 0.72 0.69 0.87 1.16

United Kingdom 0.54 0.60 0.68 0.65 0.78 1.09

North Korea 0.55 0.64 0.66 0.73 0.99 1.27

All other 0.56 0.62 0.70 0.71 0.87 1.22

 Total 0.55 0.60 0.66 0.65 0.79 1.13

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas.

Table IV-10 presents SVW’s production of PVA by end use application. The *** end use

application produced is ***. In 2006 (the most recent year for which information is available), the major

Chinese (including but not limited to SVW) end use applications which utilize PVA were polymerization

aids (*** percent), textile warp sizing (*** percent), architecture coating (*** percent), paper sizing and

coating (*** percent), adhesives (*** percent), vinal (vinylon) fibers (*** percent), and others.36

Table IV-10

PVA: Quantity and shares of SVW’s production by end uses, 2007 and January-September 2008

* * * * * * *
 37 Polyvinyl Alcohols, March 2007, Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, p. 580.1810 F. 

Additionally, JVP estimated that it accounts for *** percent of Japanese production of PVA. JVP’s foreign producer

questionnaire response, section II-17-a.

 38 Polyvinyl Alcohols, March 2007, Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, p. 580.1811 N.

 39 Polyvinyl Alcohol from Germany and Japan, Invs. Nos. 731-1015 and 1016 (Final), USITC Publication 3604,

June 2003, p. VII-3.

 40 ***. Polyvinyl Alcohols, March 2007, Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, p. 580.1811 N.

 41 ***. Polyvinyl Alcohols, March 2007, Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, p. 580.1811 O.

 42 Celanese/DuPont’s response to the notice of institution, p. 19.

 43 Reportedly exports of PVA from Japan have not increased since 1999 when Poval Asia in Singapore began

operations. ***. Polyvinyl Alcohols, March 2007, Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, pp. 580.1811

O-P.

 44 Polyvinyl Alcohols, March 2007, Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, p. 580.1811 O.

 45 Polyvinyl Alcohols, March 2007, Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, p. 580.1811 O.

 46 Polyvinyl Alcohols, March 2007, Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, pp. 580.1811 M-O. See

also Global Trade Atlas (Japan was a net exporter in 2003-08, with trade balances reaching 177.7 million pounds in

2007).

IV-12

THE INDUSTRY IN JAPAN

Overview

Only JVP provided data for these reviews. JVP accounts for *** percent of Japanese production

of PVA.37 In 2005, JVP became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Shin-Etsu Group company.38 In the

original investigations, data were received by Denki, JVP, and Kuraray Japan.39 As previously stated,

once the antidumping duty order from these investigations went into effect, Japanese exports of subject

PVA to the United States declined. 

Table IV-11

PVA: Comparison of select Japan industry data, 2002 and 2007

* * * * * * *

Although JVP has been one of the exporters of Japanese PVA to the U.S. market, it is only one of

four companies believed to produce PVA in Japan (the others include Denki Kagaku Kogyo K.K.

(“Denki”);40 Kuraray Co. Ltd. (“Kuraray”) ((reportedly the *** producer of PVA in the world);41 and

Nippon Synthetic Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (“Nippon”)).42 In 1999, Kuraray and Nippon built a

collaborative plant (Poval Asia Pte. Ltd. (“Poval Asia”)) for PVA in Singapore with a capacity of ***

metric tons (***).43 Additionally, in 2001, Kuraray acquired Clariant’s PVA facility in Frankfurt,

Germany and formed Kuraray Specialties Europe GmbH.44 Between 2003 and 2006 (the most recent

year for which estimates are available), Japanese PVA production increased irregularly from *** metric

tons (*** pounds) to *** metric tons (*** pounds), while capacity was estimated to be *** metric tons

(*** pounds).45 During this period of rising production, Japan is believed to have been a net exporter of

PVA.46
 47 JVP’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-7. 

 48 JVP’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-13. In 1998, Korea imposed a 37.75 percent tariff

rate.

 49 Polyvinyl Alcohols, March 2007, Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, p. 580.1811 W.

IV-13

PVA Operations

Table IV-12 presents data for reported production and shipments of PVA in Japan by

JVP. During the period for which data were collected, home market shipments *** from 2003 to 2007. 

Production *** reaching a *** in 2005. JVP *** alternative products utilizing the same equipment or

labor used to produce PVA.47 Finally, JVP reported that its exports of PVA (total Japanese PVA exports

are shown in table IV-13) are subject to barriers to trade in Korea.48 However, ***.49

Table IV-12

PVA: JVP’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2003-07, January-September 2007, and

January-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Table IV-13

PVA: Japan’s exports, by country, 2003-07 and January-September 2008

Source

Calendar year

JanuarySeptember

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

China 19,640 29,760 32,117 34,091 41,127 21,124

Belgium 26,192 17,277 16,663 20,629 25,476 22,654

Germany 7,004 14,184 12,692 10,684 18,685 8,544

Netherlands 8,531 7,690 7,068 12,318 13,267 8,692

Indonesia 10,353 10,014 8,454 10,462 12,052 8,249

Thailand 6,683 8,277 7,593 9,417 10,126 9,014

United States 8,067 8,797 8,584 7,900 7,929 6,137

Singapore 8,838 8,672 5,880 7,024 6,796 1,151

India 2,146 1,414 1,609 4,033 6,295 4,337

South Korea 4,552 4,883 4,692 3,699 5,620 3,849

Pakistan 1,557 1,557 1,019 1,372 3,593 2,039

Brazil 2,995 2,663 2,783 2,756 3,162 2,043

Australia 759 1,166 1,962 2,644 3,096 1,368

Hong Kong 5,434 4,385 2,388 1,580 2,543 1,667

Iran 2,130 1,330 1,437 2,551 2,473 1,986

All other 30,723 32,602 27,893 24,756 24,144 16,692

 Total 145,605 154,670 142,834 155,917 186,385 119,546

Table continued on next page.
IV-14

Table IV-13 – Continued

PVA: Japan’s exports, by country, 2003-07 and January-September 2008

Source

Calendar year

JanuarySeptember

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Value (1,000 dollars)

China 17,829 25,550 32,019 34,617 43,654 29,142

Belgium 20,063 13,323 13,537 18,318 21,646 23,555

Germany 6,120 13,902 12,945 11,973 18,998 10,822

Netherlands 9,654 8,684 8,379 12,132 14,565 13,296

Indonesia 6,142 6,635 6,640 7,962 10,487 10,332

Thailand 5,193 6,002 6,092 7,431 9,049 11,320

United States 12,080 13,577 13,502 12,486 13,507 11,573

Singapore 7,213 7,584 6,013 7,259 7,281 1,206

India 1,778 1,332 1,712 3,560 6,122 5,698

South Korea 6,214 6,454 5,902 4,926 7,776 6,884

Pakistan 1,143 1,235 891 1,237 3,038 2,527

Brazil 4,214 3,283 3,417 3,668 4,395 4,525

Australia 631 1,049 1,730 2,377 2,983 1,753

Hong Kong 6,062 5,325 3,337 2,227 2,187 1,620

Iran 1,310 941 1,231 2,092 2,290 2,757

All other 28,233 30,614 27,495 26,080 27,700 24,897

 Total 133,879 145,491 144,841 158,346 195,677 161,908

Unit value (dollars per pound)

China $0.91 $0.86 $1.00 $1.02 $1.06 $1.38

Belgium 0.77 0.77 0.81 0.89 0.85 1.04

Germany 0.87 0.98 1.02 1.12 1.02 1.27

Netherlands 1.13 1.13 1.19 0.98 1.10 1.53

Indonesia 0.59 0.66 0.79 0.76 0.87 1.25

Thailand 0.78 0.73 0.80 0.79 0.89 1.26

United States 1.50 1.54 1.57 1.58 1.70 1.89

Singapore 0.82 0.87 1.02 1.03 1.07 1.05

India 0.83 0.94 1.06 0.88 0.97 1.31

South Korea 1.37 1.32 1.26 1.33 1.38 1.79

Pakistan 0.73 0.79 0.87 0.90 0.85 1.24

Brazil 1.41 1.23 1.23 1.33 1.39 2.22

Australia 0.83 0.90 0.88 0.90 0.96 1.28

Hong Kong 1.12 1.21 1.40 1.41 0.86 0.97

Iran 0.62 0.71 0.86 0.82 0.93 1.39

All other 0.92 0.94 0.99 1.05 1.15 1.49

 Total 0.92 0.94 1.01 1.02 1.05 1.35

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas.
 50 Polyvinyl Alcohols, March 2007, Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, pp. 580.1811 Q-T.

 51 “Korea” and “South Korea” are used synonymously in this section of the report.

 52 Polyvinyl Alcohol from Germany and Japan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1015 and 1016 (Final), USITC Publication

3604, June 2003, p. VII-3, DC Chemical’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-17a, and Polyvinyl

Alcohols, March 2007, Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, p. 580.1810 F.

 53 See Global Trade Atlas (Korea was a net exporter in 2003-08, with trade balances reaching 13.9 million pounds

in 2007).

 54 ***. DC Chemical’s producer questionnaire response, sections II-2 and II-5 (2008) and DC Chemical’s

producer questionnaire response, section II-1 (2003). An independent source, Polyvinyl Alcohols, Chemical

Economics Handbook, shows DC Chemical’s capacity to be *** pounds. Polyvinyl Alcohols, March 2007, Chemical

Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, p. 580.1812 A, and Polyvinyl Alcohols, December 2003, Chemical

Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, p. 580.1811 Q.

IV-15

Table IV-14 presents data of JVP’s production of PVA by end use application. The single ***

specified end use application produced is ***, followed by ***; in addition, a *** share of production is

divided between *** and ***. For the broader Japanese market PVA fibers were identified as the largest

application in 2006 (the most recent year for which estimates are available) followed by *** and ***.50

Table IV-14

PVA: Quantity and shares of JVP’s production by end uses, 2007 and January-September 2008

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN KOREA

Overview

As shown in table IV-15, data were received from DC Chemical Co., Ltd. (“DC Chemical”) for

these reviews. DC Chemical was the only known PVA producer in Korea51 at the time of the original

investigations and is believed to be the only PVA producer in Korea today.52 As previously stated, after

imposition of these antidumping duty orders, Korean exports to the United States diminished and then

halted. Overall, however, Korea is believed to be a net exporter of PVA.53

Table IV-15

PVA: Comparison of select Korean industry data, 2002 and 2007

* * * * * * *

PVA Operations

Table IV-16 presents data for reported production and shipments of PVA for Korea. DC 

Chemical’s capacity *** throughout the period for which data were collected.54 From 2003 to 2005,

production decreased by *** percent. However, after 2005 production began to increase in 2006 and

2007; although it ***. End-of-period inventories for January-September 2008 are *** percent greater

than for the same period in 2007. Capacity utilization reached ***. In 2007, capacity utilization rose to

***. DC Chemical does not produce any alternative products utilizing the same equipment or labor used
 55 DC Chemical’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-7. 

 56 DC Chemical’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-13. 

IV-16

to produce PVA.55 Finally, DC Chemical reported that its exports of PVA (as shown in table IV-17) are

not subject to any barriers to trade.56

Table IV-16

PVA: Korean capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2003-07, January-September 2007, and

January-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Table IV-17

PVA: Korea’s exports, by country, 2003-07 and January-September 2008

Source

Calendar year

JanuarySeptember

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Italy 5,821 4,708 198 1,982 6,920 1,687

India 2,913 2,964 4,456 2,717 3,004 1,411

Indonesia 3,660 3,843 3,130 2,249 2,630 2,708

China 687 1,015 862 1,728 1,279 519

Vietnam 293 980 1,049 1,354 1,181 657

Pakistan 2,175 1,764 941 1,623 1,164 494

Iran 819 1,623 811 600 988 287

Uzbekistan 1,340 952 741 670 811 494

United Arab Emirates 0 141 35 11 741 670

Malaysia 1,279 1,742 1,746 666 638 536

Belgium 165 66 0 0 529 212

Mauritius 0 185 340 433 371 370

Netherlands 586 853 319 31 317 0

Egypt 127 139 459 776 282 71

Brazil 35 211 317 247 247 247

All other 4,716 4,250 2,479 2,465 1,540 7,336

 Total 24,617 25,435 17,885 17,551 22,643 17,698

Table continued on next page.
IV-17

Table IV-17 – Continued

PVA: Korea’s exports, by country, 2003-07 and January-September 2008

Source

Calendar year

JanuarySeptember

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Value (1,000 dollars)

Italy 3,494 3,382 134 1,433 6,279 2,229

India 1,637 1,947 3,219 1,973 2,352 1,895

Indonesia 1,994 2,496 2,230 1,601 2,497 3,738

China 431 678 646 1,365 1,159 705

Vietnam 214 692 847 1,097 1,171 868

Pakistan 1,324 1,230 700 1,192 1,039 632

Iran 498 1,113 614 461 980 372

Uzbekistan 959 751 700 678 960 804

United Arab Emirates 0 97 26 9 879 813

Malaysia 732 1,195 1,296 472 569 684

Belgium 93 44 0 0 442 276

Mauritius 0 141 295 365 373 533

Netherlands 332 582 234 23 258 0

Egypt 89 98 355 564 244 99

Brazil 21 146 242 190 236 330

All other 2,889 2,965 1,920 1,917 1,494 9,544

 Total 14,704 17,557 13,458 13,340 20,934 23,523

Unit value (dollars per pound)

Italy $0.60 $0.72 $0.67 $0.72 $0.91 $1.32

India 0.56 0.66 0.72 0.73 0.78 1.34

Indonesia 0.54 0.65 0.71 0.71 0.95 1.38

China 0.63 0.67 0.75 0.79 0.91 1.36

Vietnam 0.73 0.71 0.81 0.81 0.99 1.32

Pakistan 0.61 0.70 0.74 0.73 0.89 1.28

Iran 0.61 0.69 0.76 0.77 0.99 1.30

Uzbekistan 0.72 0.79 0.95 1.01 1.18 1.63

United Arab Emirates (1

) 0.69 0.73 0.81 1.19 1.21

Malaysia 0.57 0.69 0.74 0.71 0.89 1.28

Belgium 0.56 0.66 (1

) (1) 0.84 1.31

Mauritius (1

) 0.76 0.87 0.84 1.01 1.44

Netherlands 0.57 0.68 0.73 0.73 0.81 (1

)

Egypt 0.70 0.71 0.77 0.73 0.87 1.41

Brazil 0.58 0.69 0.76 0.77 0.96 1.33

All other 0.61 0.70 0.77 0.78 0.97 1.30

 Total 0.60 0.69 0.75 0.76 0.92 1.33

 1 Not defined.

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas.
 57 Polyvinyl Alcohols, March 2007, Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, p. 580.1810 E.

 58 Polyvinyl Alcohols, March 2007, Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, pp. 580.1810 L, 580.1811

E, 580.1811 P, 580.1811 Y.

IV-18

Table IV-18 presents data of DC Chemical’s production of PVA by end use application. The two

largest end use applications produced are ***.

Table IV-18

PVA: Quantity and shares of DC Chemical’s production by end uses, 2007 and January-September

2008

* * * * * * *

GLOBAL MARKET

Supply and Demand

According to the published sources, global capacity at the end of 2006 was approximately ***

MT (*** pounds) with approximately three-quarters located in Asia. China alone was estimated to

account for *** percent of global capacity in 2006.57 Table IV-19 presents capacity, production, trade

and consumption data on a regional basis.

Table IV-19

PVA: World capacity, production, imports, exports and consumption, 2006, consumption, 2011,

and annual growth rate, 2006-11, by region/country

* * * * * * *

The different regions consume PVA for different applications. In the United States, PVA is

primarily used to make PVB. The next two major uses in the U.S. market are *** and ***. In Western

Europe, the primary application for PVA is again to make PVB, but the next two leading uses are *** and

***. In Japan, PVB production is still substantial, but the top three applications of PVA are vinylon

fibers, ***, and ***. In China, the primary application is the manufacture of polymerization aids,

followed by textile warp sizing and architecture coating. The Korean market is similar to that of Japan

with the same three major applications; however, in Korea, *** are paramount.58

Table IV-20 presents export data for the larger producing countries. Throughout this period, the

United States has been among the largest exporters of PVA in the world.
IV-19

Table IV-20

PVA: Global exports, by country, 2003-07 and January-September 2008

Item

Calendar year

JanuarySeptember

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Japan 145,605 154,670 142,834 155,917 186,385 119,546

Taiwan 138,067 156,109 133,798 159,921 164,446 123,393

United States 117,988 139,972 135,436 155,308 160,747 118,715

Singapore 100,481 109,604 98,905 106,736 106,570 (1

)

China 54,946 59,786 82,564 91,505 66,193 76,207

Spain 7,394 7,496 7,185 8,217 47,381 34,526

Netherlands 50,380 43,391 45,324 35,509 46,537 39,454

South Korea 24,617 25,435 17,885 17,551 22,643 17,698

Italy 18,801 19,412 21,122 23,455 20,401 10,265

Belgium 28,402 20,128 13,574 13,913 19,405 15,811

United

Kingdom 12,676 13,922 13,823 15,800 19,006 14,722

France 9,054 14,409 10,084 13,913 12,222 12,183

Hong Kong 6,928 7,821 5,106 2,515 2,624 2,617

Austria 174 258 328 467 1,060 637

Thailand 29 198 382 373 842 448

All other 80,534 81,917 6,467 7,155 6,652 3,423

 Total 796,077 854,527 734,817 808,256 883,114 589,644

Table continued on next page.
IV-20

Table IV-20 – Continued

PVA: Global exports, by country, 2003-07 and January-September 2008

Item

Calendar year

JanuarySeptember

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Value (1,000 dollars)

Japan 133,879 145,491 144,841 158,346 195,677 161,908

Taiwan 77,071 97,128 95,937 118,267 136,520 137,610

United States 75,207 97,861 105,749 119,423 134,236 132,217

Singapore 65,879 79,426 79,186 90,256 103,346 (1

)

China 30,005 36,095 54,845 59,834 52,454 86,356

Spain 6,101 6,543 6,430 7,442 53,369 48,817

Netherlands 42,681 42,072 45,140 36,455 56,873 63,789

South Korea 14,704 17,557 13,458 13,340 20,934 23,523

Italy 15,536 19,011 18,905 21,075 22,043 14,272

Belgium 26,993 20,244 13,222 14,328 21,779 20,772

United

Kingdom 20,906 25,606 23,028 27,562 39,643 33,649

France 5,354 8,337 7,065 9,220 9,425 10,868

Hong Kong 5,752 7,899 5,420 2,686 3,126 3,471

Austria 260 495 532 813 1,578 1,199

Thailand 25 173 355 310 833 536

All other 71,907 79,499 5,777 6,263 8,068 4,911

 Total 592,261 683,437 619,891 685,619 859,905 743,898

Table continued on next page.
IV-21

Table IV-20 – Continued

PVA: Global exports, by country, 2003-07 and January-September 2008

Item

Calendar year

JanuarySeptember

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Unit value (per pound)

Japan $0.92 $0.94 $1.01 $1.02 $1.05 $1.35

Taiwan 0.56 0.62 0.72 0.74 0.83 1.12

United States 0.64 0.70 0.78 0.77 0.84 1.11

Singapore 0.66 0.72 0.80 0.85 0.97 (1

) 

China 0.55 0.60 0.66 0.65 0.79 1.13

Spain 0.83 0.87 0.89 0.91 1.13 1.41

Netherlands 0.85 0.97 1.00 1.03 1.22 1.62

South Korea 0.60 0.69 0.75 0.76 0.92 1.33

Italy 0.83 0.98 0.90 0.90 1.08 1.39

Belgium 0.95 1.01 0.97 1.03 1.12 1.31

United

Kingdom 1.65 1.84 1.67 1.74 2.09 2.29

France 0.59 0.58 0.70 0.66 0.77 0.89

Hong Kong 0.83 1.01 1.06 1.07 1.19 1.33

Austria 1.49 1.92 1.62 1.74 1.49 1.88

Thailand 0.86 0.87 0.93 0.83 0.99 1.19

All other 0.89 0.97 0.89 0.88 1.21 1.43

 Total 0.74 0.80 0.84 0.85 0.97 1.26

 1

 Data not available for this country for January-September 2008.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.
 59 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-31 and III-30, respectively; U.S. purchaser

questionnaire responses, section VI-5; and foreign producer questionnaire responses, section IV-8. The responding

firms were requested to provide the basis for any price comparison, and note the specific information as to price

levels, products, time periods, and countries or regions for any price comparisons. 

 60 In addition, data for prices of PVA in the United States and other markets, reported by SRI Consulting, indicate

that annual prices for PVA in the United States were above those for PVA in Western Europe and Japan. Polyvinyl

Alcohols, March 2007, Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI Consulting, pp. 580.1810 P, 580.1811 I, 580.1811 U. 

U.S. prices were between *** in 2003 and *** to between *** in 2007. Western European prices *** from *** (per

kilogram) in 2003 to *** in 2007. Japanese prices were *** (per kilogram) in 2003, *** to *** in 2004 then *** to

*** in 2007. It should be noted, however, that U.S. prices are list prices and as the report states “actual market

prices are believed to be less.” Western European and Japanese prices are for commodity grade PVA and thus, do

not include prices for higher-grade, specialty products. Ibid., p. 16.

IV-22

Prices of PVA in the U.S. Market Compared to Prices in Other Countries

U.S. PVA producers, importers and foreign PVA producers were requested to compare prices of

PVA in the United States with PVA prices in other countries during January 2003-September 2008.59 

Three U.S. PVA producers (Celanese, DuPont, and Solutia) and two U.S. importers (***) provided

useable comments, which are shown in the following tabulation.60

* * * * * * *
 1

 DuPont reported that ***. Email correspondence from ***, received December 16, 2008.

 2 Polyvinyl Alcohol from Germany and Japan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1015-1016 (Final), USITC Publication 3604,

June 2003, p. II-1.

 3

 Staff interview with *** officials, December 3, 2008.

 4

 In fact, Celanese and DuPont contend that ***. Celanese/DuPont’s posthearing brief, Part II: Answers to

Commission Questions, p. 7.

 5

 Solutia’s posthearing brief, p. A46.

 6

 Celanese/DuPont’s posthearing brief, Part II: Response to Commission Questions, p.6. In addition, Celanese

and DuPont stated that ***. Ibid., p. 7.

 7

 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-14.

 8

 Quarterly price data were calculated as simple averages of monthly price data reported by the Energy

Information Administration. 

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICING

U.S. prices of PVA can fluctuate based on demand factors such as overall U.S. economic activity 

and demand fluctuations in sectors such as PVB, textiles, emulsion polymerization, adhesives, and paper. 

On the supply side, prices of PVA can differ by a number of product specifications, including, but not

restricted to, the degree of hydrolysis and viscosity.1

 In addition, the price of PVA can fluctuate due to

competitive pricing, and the size of the shipment.

The various standard and specialty grades of PVA offer a variety of performance properties that

make PVA useful in a wide range of applications. Some of these performance properties of PVA include

water solubility, abrasion resistance, adhesive and bonding properties, and grease/oil resistance. 

Historically, the highest prices have been paid by the paper industry, followed by adhesives and

emulsion polymerization, then textiles, with the lowest prices for products sold to textile compounders. 

At the time of the original investigations, PVA for PVB applications was priced between textiles and

adhesives applications.2

 However, this price hierarchy has been characterized as being “aspirational” in

that sales of PVA for more valuable end products do not consistently result in higher returns.3 4

Solutia noted that the cost of production for a particular type of PVA is a function of raw

materials and the production run time. While PVB grade PVA does not use more VAM per pound than

other grades of PVA, different grades can involve additional production steps and thus have higher

production costs.5

 With respect to PVA generally, including PVB grade PVA, Celanese and DuPont

contend that “the role of quality specifications in PVA pricing is overshadowed by (1) purchase volume,

(2) purchasing terms (long-term contract, short-term contract, or spot market), and (3) overall

supply/demand in the market.6

Raw Material Costs

The principal raw material inputs used to produce PVA are ethylene, acetic acid, and methanol, or

VAM and methanol. Ethylene and acetic acid are combined to produce VAM, which is polymerized and

combined with methanol to produce PVA. As discussed in Part III of this report, raw materials

constituted the largest share of U.S. producers’ costs of goods sold (COGS), averaging approximately ***

of COGS. Natural gas, or its derivative ethane, is the primary feedstock used by U.S. PVA producers to

manufacture VAM, the principal raw material source to produce PVA. Thus, natural gas prices

reportedly have been a substantial factor in U.S. PVA production costs.7

 Figure V-1 shows quarterly

natural gas prices to U.S. industrial users during January 2003-November 2008.8

 As shown in figure V-1,

quarterly prices of natural gas increased from $6.77 per thousand cubic feet (“Mcf”) in the first quarter of
 9

 Natural Gas Navigator, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.

V-2

2003 to a period high of $11.78 in the fourth quarter of 2005. Prices for natural gas then fell to $6.83 in

third quarter of 2007, rose again to $11.16 by April-June 2008, before falling to $10.65 per thousand

cubic feet in July-September 2008.9

 

Figure V-1

Natural gas prices: U.S. natural gas industrial prices, by quarter, January 2003-September 2008

Note.– “Mcf” refers to one thousand cubic feet of natural gas.

Source: Compiled from monthly price data reported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration,

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3035us3m.htm, retrieved Feb. 24, 2009.
 10 At the hearing, Celanese and DuPont were asked if they were able to hedge on energy supplies. Celanese

reported that it ***. Celanese/DuPont’s posthearing brief, Part II: Responses to Commission Questions, p. 3.

 11 DuPont also noted that the tightness in the supply/demand balance in the market also contributed to the increase

in prices. Hearing transcript (open session), p. 44 (Korte).

 12 Hearing transcript (open session), pp. 45-46 (Purvis).

 13 As noted in the contracts,***. Celanese/DuPont’s posthearing brief, Attachment F. 

 14 Foreign producers’ questionnaire, section III-6.

V-3

U.S. producers were asked to what extent have changes in raw material costs affected their firm’s

PVA selling price.10 All three U.S. producers provided comments, presented in the following tabulation.

* * * * * * *

In addition, Celanese and DuPont were asked to discuss the relationship between price increases

during the later part of the period of review and increases in raw material costs. DuPont reported that the

bulk of its price increases over the past two years were driven by higher energy costs as DuPont was

forced to try to recover margins and pass on the cost increases to its customers.11 Celanese and DuPont

reported that they try to increase prices to cover rising raw material costs, however, Celanese reported that

this is typically attempted directly through a price increase, rather than a raw material surcharge.12 In the

case of sales to ***, however, examples of contracts ***.

13

Foreign producers in China, Japan, and Korea were also asked to what extent had changes in the

prices of raw materials affected their firm’s selling prices for PVA since 2003.14 *** indicated that oil

prices can be a major factor affecting the cost of raw materials (VAM). *** reported that since 2003, it

had increased the selling price of PVA by nearly *** percent in order to cover cost increases for raw

materials, mainly ethylene. According to ***, raw material costs will decline in accordance with a

decrease in the price of oil; however, such a decrease will be subject to a time lag as oil stocks are resupplied.

Tariff Rates

The U.S. normal trade relations ad valorem import duty rate was 3.2 percent for imports of PVA

under HTS subheading 3905.30.00 during January 2003-September 2008; no future staged tariff

reductions are currently planned under this HTS subheading. In addition, under the NAFTA

Canada/Mexico Preference, PVA classified under the above HTS subheading qualifying for North

American treatment has been accorded a zero duty rate.

Transportation Costs to the U.S. Market

Transportation charges to ship PVA from China and Japan to the U.S. port of entry, as a ratio to

the U.S. official customs value, averaged 9.2 percent and 5.8 percent, respectively, during 2003-07. The

transportation costs from China fluctuated, but declined from 12.9 percent in 2003 to 7.0 percent in 2007. 

Transportation charges to ship PVA from Japan declined from 5.9 percent in 2003 to 5.3 percent in 2007. 

Although there were no imports of PVA from Korea in 2007, transportation charges from Korea declined

from 6.7 percent in 2003 to 2.0 percent in 2006. 

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

U.S. producers’ U.S. inland transportation costs, as a share of total delivered cost for PVA,

reported by *** ranged between *** and *** percent of the total delivered price of PVA during January
 15 U.S. producers’ and importers’ questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-11 and III-B-11, respectively. 

 16 U.S. importers’ questionnaire response, section III-10.

 17 U.S. producers’ questionnaire, section IV-10.

V-4

2003-September 2008.15 Similarly, six responding importers reported that U.S. inland transportation

costs were 3.4 percent or less of the total delivered price of PVA.16 All responding U.S. producers and

importers reported that their firms arranged for transportation. U.S. producers and importers also were

asked to estimate the share of their sales that occurred within certain distance ranges. U.S. producers ***

reported that their sales were nationwide. On average, U.S. producers reported shipping *** percent of

their PVA within 100 miles of their storage or production facilities, *** percent between 101 and 1,000

miles, and *** percent beyond 1,000 miles.17 Two of the five responding U.S. importers also reported

selling their PVA throughout the United States, and of the remaining three one sold PVA solely in the

Southwest, one sold solely in the Southeast, and one solely in the Midwest. On average, U.S. importers

of PVA reported shipping *** percent of their PVA within 100 miles of their U.S. shipping facilities, ***

percent between 101 and 1,000 miles, and *** percent over 1,000 miles.

U.S. producers were asked about the average lead time between order and delivery for their

firm’s U.S. sales. Both responding producers reported that for sales from inventory, the lead time ranged

between *** to *** days for 2007 and *** days for the January-September period of 2008. 

Exchange Rates

Quarterly exchange rates reported by the International Monetary Fund for the three subject

countries during the period January 2003-September 2008 are shown in figures V-2, V-3, and V-4.

Figure V-2

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal exchange rate of the Chinese yuan relative to the U.S.

dollar, by quarter, January 2003-September 2008

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics online, http://imfstatistics.org/imf, retrieved

February 16, 2009.
V-5

Figure V-3

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Japanese yen relative to the

U.S. dollar, by quarter, January 2003-September 2008

Source: 

International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics online, http://imfstatistics.org/imf, retrieved February 16,

2009.

Figure V-4

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Korean won relative to the 

U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2003-September 2008

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics online, http://imfstatistics.org/imf, retrieved

February 16, 2009.
 18 Information on pricing practices discussed here was based on questionnaire responses of the U.S. producers

and importers of PVA, unless otherwise noted; Celanese and DuPont provided all of the pricing practice information

for U.S.-produced PVA.

 19 U.S. producers’ questionnaire response section IV-3.

 20 Celanese reported that prices are typically set on a quarterly basis in the U.S. market and that if Celanese

wanted to raise prices, it would typically make an announcement 30 days before the end of the quarter. However,

Celanese also noted that it can announce price increases but it still has to negotiate to achieve those. Hearing

transcript (open session), pp. 46-47 (Purvis).

 21 U.S. producers’ questionnaire response section IV-3.

 22 ***.

 23 DuPont reported that ***. Celanese/DuPont’s posthearing brief, Part II: Responses to Commissioners’

Questions, p. 41.

 24 In response to a question at the hearing, Celanese reported that, over review period, approximately *** percent

of its sales were covered by long-term contracts. Celanese noted that, in the future, the percentage is expected to be

closer to *** percent as it ***. Celanese/DuPont’s posthearing brief, Part II: Responses to Commissioners’

Questions, p. 40.

V-6

PRICING PRACTICES18

Pricing Methods

Producers were asked to describe how they determine the prices that they charged for their sales

of PVA.19 Celanese reported that it ***. According to Celanese, its ***.20 DuPont reported that ***.21 

Importers of PVA reported using a variety of methods in determining prices for PVA. *** noted

that contract pricing for its U.S. sales of PVA is based on annual agreements, with firm pricing for a 12-

month period being common. *** also reported that, for recent business, quarterly price negotiations

were selected as a more accurate method of conducting business.22 *** reported that its prices of

imported PVA are set for a certain period and are negotiated and revised every quarter. The company

also posts price increase announcements on its web page. Another importer of PVA from Japan, *** ,

reported that *** and its pricing is on a “cost plus” basis to cover U.S. inland freight and documentation

fees. For imports of PVA from nonsubject sources, *** reported that prices for PVA were determined on

a transaction-by-transaction basis. *** reported that its total delivered cost for PVA imported from ***

includes: CIF, duties, financing, “junk charges,” warehouse transport, and warehouse in and out plus

transport to customer, plus 10 percent profit. 

U.S. producers and importers of PVA from China, Japan, and Korea were asked to report the

percentage of their sales that were on a (1) long-term contract basis (multiple deliveries for more than 12

months), (2) short-term contract basis, and (3) spot sales basis (for a single delivery) in 2007. U.S.

producers and importers reported a mix of contract and spot sales. *** reported that long-term contracts

accounted for *** percent of its sales, short-term contracts for *** percent, and spot sales for ***

percent.23 *** reported that long-term contracts accounted for *** percent of its sales and the remainder

(*** percent) consisted of spot sales.24 Three U.S. importers, ***, provided information on the share of

sales made on a contract and/or spot basis. For its shipments of PVA from ***, *** reported that short

term contract sales accounted for *** percent of its shipments and the remainder (*** percent) consisted

of spot sales. *** reported that *** percent of their sales of PVA from *** and ***, respectively, were on

a spot basis. 

As noted earlier in the report, *** is the *** consumer of PVA in the U.S. market. As such,

DuPont, Celanese, and Solutia were requested to provide additional information with regard to their
 25 Copies of contracts between Solutia and both Celanese and DuPont are contained in the Celanese/DuPont’s

posthearing brief (see exhibits F-H). 

 26 ***. Celanese/DuPont’s posthearing brief, Part II: Responses to Commissioners’ Questions, p. 43.

 27 DuPont reported that ***. Celanese/DuPont’s posthearing brief, Part II: Responses to Commissioners’

Questions, p. 44. 

 28 ***. Celanese/DuPont’s posthearing brief, appendix G, p. 3.

 29 Solutia’s posthearing brief, appendix A, p. A42.

 30 Solutia’s posthearing brief, appendix A, p. A42-A43.

 31 Celanese reported that “the vast majority” of its contractual customer base has contracts with meet-or-release

clauses and noted that “its very common for the meet-or-release” clauses to be invoked. Hearing transcript, pp. 120-

121 (Purvis). However, ***. Celanese/DuPont’s posthearing brief, Part II: Responses to Commissioners’

Questions, p. 25.

 32 U.S. importers’ questionnaire response, section III-3.

 33 In addition, *** reported that, although its standard contract does not contain a meet-or-release provision, its

contracts with a given customer may include a such provision because contracts are negotiated on a customer-bycustomer basis. 

 34 ***.

V-7

contracts with one another.25 DuPont reported that it has been a *** to Solutia since *** and the initial

contract between DuPont and Solutia was put into place ***.26 According to DuPont, during the course

of this contract, Solutia ***.27 Celanese reported that it had ***. This contract ***. While the contract

***.28 According to Celanese, it ***. Solutia reported that ***. For its contract with Celanese, ***. 

Under this contract, pricing is determined *** . Solutia reported that the contract contains ***.29

Solutia’s contract with DuPont ***. This contract contains ***.30

*** responding U.S. producers, ***, reported that it offers short term contracts and the average

duration of its long-term contracts was ***. *** reported that prices can be renegotiated during the

contract period; contracts fixed both quantity and price; and contracts could potentially contain meet-orrelease provisions.31 *** reported that its contracts ***. *** reported that its contract policy typically

provides for ***.

Importers that use long-term contracts reported that the duration of contracts ranged between one

and two years; prices could be renegotiated during the contract period; contracts fixed both quantity and

price; and contracts typically contained meet-or-release provisions. Most responding importers that

reported using short-term contracts stated that the duration of contracts for PVA ranged from four months

to one year. Responding importers reported that prices could be renegotiated during the contract period;

that quantity and prices were fixed by the contract; and that contracts typically contained meet-or-release

provisions.32 *** that base pricing may be fixed initially, but quantity typically is set as a range of

volumes or as a share of the customer’s requirements.33

Sales Terms and Discounts

U.S. producers and importers were asked to describe their discount policies for their sales of

PVA.34 ***. Similarly, ***. With regard to sales terms, *** Celanese and DuPont reported that payment

terms for sales of PVA are ***.

Five of the six responding importers reported that they did not have any discount policy for their

sales of PVA. The remaining responding importer, ***, reported that discounts for its sales of imported

PVA are ***; thus, discounts for its sales of imported PVA vary and are based on contractual

negotiations. Importers also reported that payment terms for sales of PVA are net 30 days.
 35 ***. Email correspondence from ***, received December 9, 2008.

 36 Staff requested data for sales exclusively to end users because it was argued during the questionnaire comment

phase that prices differed for sales to distributors and sales to end users (JVP’s comments on draft questionnaires,

submitted by Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, October 1, 2008, p. 2). In an effort to gather data reflecting the majority of

sales of both domestic and imported PVA and to minimize the burden on responding firms, data were requested for

sales of PVA to end user customers.

 37 Staff phone conversation with ***, October 23, 2008. See also email correspondence from ***, October 27,

2008.

 38 Data in this report show that U.S. producers reported sales of PVA in bulk for two of the specified products

(product 1, PVA for textile applications and product 2, PVA for use in PVB applications); prices for domestic PVA

sold in bags was reported for products 1-6. Price data for imported PVA were predominantly for sales of PVA in

bags.

V-8

Questionnaire Price Data

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of PVA to provide quarterly data for the

total quantity and f.o.b. value of selected products that were shipped to unrelated U.S. end user customers. 

Data were requested for the period January 2003-September 2008. The products for which pricing data

were requested are as follows:35

Product 1. –PVA for use in textile applications with a range of hydrolysis between 95-100

(percent) and a viscosity between 20-35 (centipois)

Product 2. –PVA for use in adhesive applications with a range of hydrolysis between 80-89

(percent) and a viscosity between 20-35 (centipois)

Product 3. –PVA for use in paper applications with a range of hydrolysis between 95-100

(percent) and a viscosity between 20-35 (centipois)

Product 4. –PVA for use in adhesive applications with a range of hydrolysis between 80-89

(percent) and a viscosity between 0-19 (centipois)

Product 5. –PVA for use in adhesive applications with a range of hydrolysis between 80-89

(percent) and a viscosity between 36-55 (centipois)

Product 6. –PVA for use in PVB applications with a range of hydrolysis between 98-100

(percent) and a viscosity between 28-32 (centipois)

As originally drafted and issued to producers and importers, the Commission’s questionnaires

requested data for sales of PVA products in bulk sold to end users.36 Subsequent to the mailing of the

questionnaires, staff received information from *** which indicated that a substantial portion of sales of

both domestic and imported PVA were made in bags not in bulk.37 38 Accordingly, staff issued

supplemental questionnaires which requested price data for PVA sold to end users in bags. Price data

discussed in this section are for sales of the 6 specified PVA products sold in bulk and sold in bags.

*** U.S. producers, ***, and six importers of PVA from the subject countries, ***, provided

usable price data for sales of the requested products, although not all firms reported pricing for all
 39 ***. Staff equally divided the annual quantity and value data into quarterly data. 

 40 Price data for sales of PVA imported from Taiwan are presented in appendix F.

V-9

quarters on subject countries.39 In addition, ***, also reported the requested quarterly selling price data

for one nonsubject country, Taiwan.40 

U.S. producers’ reported price data accounted for approximately *** percent of total reported

U.S. commercial shipments of U.S.-produced PVA during January 2003-September 2008. U.S.

importers’ reported price data accounted for *** percent of total reported U.S. commercial shipments of

PVA imported from China during this period and approximately *** percent of total reported U.S.

commercial shipments of PVA imported from Japan. There were no reported data for sales of imports of

PVA from Korea during this period.

Price Trends

In general, prices for domestic PVA fluctuated within a fairly narrow range for the period 2003

through 2007 then increased in 2008 (tables V-1 to V-8 and figures V-5 to V-12). Price data for imports

of subject PVA from subject sources were limited in many cases; for those products for which there were

data for the entire period of review, prices also showed increases in 2008.

Table V-1 

PVA: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices of domestic and imported product 1, sold in BAGS to end

users, and margins of (overselling)/underselling, January 2003-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Table V-2 

PVA: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices of domestic and imported product 1, sold in BULK to end

users, and margins of (overselling)/underselling, January 2003-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Table V-3 

PVA: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices of domestic and imported product 2, sold in BAGS to end

users, and margins of (overselling)/underselling, January 2003-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Table V-4 

PVA: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices of domestic and imported product 3, sold in BAGS to end

users, and margins of (overselling)/underselling, January 2003-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Table V-5 

PVA: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices of domestic and imported product 4, sold in BAGS to end

users, and margins of (overselling)/underselling, January 2003-September 2008

* * * * * * *
V-10

Table V-6

PVA: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices of domestic and imported product 5, sold in 

BAGS and in BULK to end users, and margins of (overselling)/underselling, January

2003-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Table V-7

PVA: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices of domestic and imported product 6, sold in 

BULK to end users, and margins of (overselling)/underselling, January 2003-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Figure V-5

PVA: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices of U.S.-produced and subject imported

product 1, sold in BAGS to end users, by quarters, January 2003-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Figure V-6

PVA: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices of U.S.-produced and subject imported

product 1, sold in BULK to end users, by quarters, January 2003-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Figure V-7

PVA: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices of U.S.-produced and subject imported

product 2, sold in BAGS to end users, by quarters, January 2003-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Figure V-8

PVA: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices of U.S.-produced and subject imported

product 3, sold in BAGS to end users, by quarters, January 2003-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Figure V-9

PVA: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices of U.S.-produced and subject imported

product 4, sold in BAGS to end users, by quarters, January 2003-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Figure V-10

PVA: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices of U.S.-produced and subject imported

product 5, sold in BAGS to end users, by quarters, January 2003-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Figure V-11

PVA: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices of U.S.-produced and subject imported

product 5, sold in BULK to end users, by quarters, January 2003-September 2008

* * * * * * *
V-11

Figure V-12

PVA: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices of U.S.-produced and subject imported

product 6, sold in BULK to end users, by quarters, January 2003-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Table V-8

PVA: Summary of reported weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices, by product, and by country

Item

Number of

quarters

Low price 

(per pound)

High price 

(per pound)

Change in price1

(percent)

Product 1 sold in BAGS to end users

 United States 23 *** *** ***

 China 10 *** *** ***

 Taiwan 23 *** *** ***

Product 1 sold in BULK to end users

United States 23 *** *** ***

 Japan 2 *** *** ***

Product 2 sold in BAGS to end users

 United States 23 *** *** ***

 China 21 *** *** ***

 Taiwan 23 *** *** ***

Product 3 sold in BAGS to end users

 Untied States 23 *** *** ***

 China 23 *** *** ***

 Taiwan 21 *** *** ***

Product 4 sold in BAGS to end users

 United States 23 *** *** ***

 China 13 *** *** ***

 Taiwan 23 *** *** ***

Product 5 sold in BAGS to end users

 United States 23 *** *** ***

 China 23 *** *** ***

 Taiwan 23 *** *** ***

Product 5 sold in BULK to end users

 Japan 7 *** *** ***

Product 6 sold in BULK to end users

United States 23 *** *** ***

 1 Percentage change from the first quarter in which price data were available to the last quarter in which price

data were available, based on unrounded data.

Source: Complied from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 41 Data for Chinese product were reported for sales of PVA in bags only during January 2003-June 2005. 

 42 Data for Japanese product were reported for sales of bulk PVA during for the first and second quarters of 2003. 

 43 Data for Chinese product were not reported during the third and fourth quarters of 2006.

 44 Data for Chinese product were not reported during fourth quarter of 2004, the first three quarters of 2005, and

October 2006-December 2007. 

V-12

For product 1, weighted-average quarterly selling prices for U.S.-produced PVA produced

product 1 (sold in bags) increased irregularly for U.S.-produced PVA, whereas prices of imported

Chinese PVA declined irregularly from the first quarter of 2003 through the second quarter of 2005 (table

V-1 and figure V-5). Quarterly selling prices of the U.S.-produced product 1 (in bags) declined

irregularly from *** per pound during January-March 2003 to per pound in July-September 2004, or by

*** percent, before increasing irregularly to *** per pound by July-September 2008, or *** percent

higher than the initial-period price. 

Quarterly selling prices of PVA product 1 imported from China irregularly increased from ***

per pound in January-March 2003 to *** per pound in January-March 2005, or by *** percent, before

declining to *** per pound in April-June 2005, or was *** percent lower than the initial-period price.41

The quarterly selling price of imported Japanese product 1 (sold in bulk) remained constant during the

first two quarters of 2003 (table V-2 and figure V-6).42 

Weighted-average quarterly selling prices for U.S. product 2 increased irregularly from *** per

pound in January-March 2003 to *** per pound in January-March 2006, then increased to *** per pound

in July-September 2008, or *** percent higher than the initial-period price (table V-3 and figure V-7). 

Quarterly selling prices of PVA product 2 imported from China increased irregularly from *** per pound

in January-March 2003 to *** per pound in July-September 2005, or by *** percent. These prices then

declined to *** per pound in April-June 2006.43 Quarterly selling prices of imported Chinese product 2

reached *** in July-September 2008, or *** percent higher than the initial period.

Weighted-average quarterly selling prices of U.S.-produced PVA product 3 (sold in bags) prices

for U.S. product 3 declined irregularly from *** per pound in January-March 2003 to *** per pound in

January-March 2004 or by *** percent; these prices reached *** per pound in July-September 2008, or

*** percent higher than the initial-period price (table V-4 and figure V-8). Sales prices of PVA product 3

imported from China increased irregularly from *** per pound in January-March 2003 to *** per pound

in October-December 2005, or by *** percent, before increasing irregularly to *** per pound in JulySeptember 2008, or *** percent higher than the price in the initial quarter of the period.

Weighted-average quarterly selling prices for U.S.-produced PVA product 4 (sold in bags)

increased irregularly from *** per pound in January-March 2003 to *** per pound in July-September

2008 (table V-5 and figure V-9). Quarterly selling prices of PVA of product 4 imported from China

increased from *** per pound in January-March 2003 to *** per pound in July-September 2008, a level

approximately *** percent above the price in the first quarter of the review period.44

Weighted-average quarterly selling prices for U.S.-produced product 5 (sold in bags) increased 

irregularly from *** per pound in January-March 2003 to a peak of *** per pound in July-September

2008, or *** percent higher than the initial-period price (table V-6 and figure V-10). Quarterly selling

prices of PVA imported from China increased from *** per pound in January-March 2003 to *** per

pound in July-September 2008, or *** percent higher than the initial period. Quarterly selling prices of

imported Japanese product 5 (sold in bulk) increased from *** per pound in January-March 2003 to ***

per pound in October-December 2003; these prices declined irregularly to *** per pound in OctoberDecember 2004 (table V-6 and figure V-11). 

Weighted-average quarterly selling prices for U.S.-produced PVA product 6 (sold in bulk)

increased irregularly from *** per pound in January-March 2003 to *** per pound in January-March

2006, before increasing to *** per pound in January-September 2008, or *** percent higher than the

initial-period price (table V-7 and figure V-12).
 45 ***.

 46 Solutia reported that while its purchases of PVA are down slightly from 2008, in terms of volume, the prices

that Solutia is paying are higher. According to Solutia, it pays more per pound in the first quarter of 2009 than it

paid in the fourth quarter of 2008 and it paid substantially more in the fourth quarter of 2008 than it did in the fourth

quarter of 2007. Hearing transcript (open session), p. 149 (Berezo).

V-13

In addition to collecting quarterly price data from U.S. producers and importers, U.S. purchasers

were asked if their firm has negotiated prices for 2009 to report the percentage price increase or decrease

for 2009 prices as compared to 2008 prices.45 Seven purchasers provided information and the following

tabulation summarizes the responses of the responding firms.46

* * * * * * *

Price Comparisons

Margins of underselling and overselling are presented by country in table V-9. As can be seen

from the table, prices for PVA imported from China were below those for U.S.-produced PVA in 40 of 90

possible instances; margins of underselling ranged from *** to *** percent. In the other 50 instances,

prices for Chinese PVA were priced above the domestic product, with margins of overselling ranging

from *** to *** percent. With regard to Japan, prices for Japanese PVA were below those for U.S.-

produced PVA in the only two instances where comparisons could be made; margins of underselling were

*** percent.

Table V-9

PVA: Instances, range, and average margins of underselling/(overselling), by country, January

2004-September 2008

Country

Underselling Overselling

Number

of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number

of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

China 40 *** *** 50 *** ***

Japan 2 *** *** - - -

Total subject

countries 42 *** *** 50 *** ***

Source: Complied from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-14

Table V-10 presents instances and ranges of margins of under/overselling from the original

investigations.

Table V-10

PVA: Instances and ranges of margins of under/overselling from the original investigations, by

country, January 2000-December 2002

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances Range (percent)

Number of

instances Range (percent)

Country:

 China 41 *** 4 ***

 Korea 10 *** 4 ***

 Japan 3 *** 3 ***

Total 54 *** 11 ***

Source: Staff report from the original investigations (INV-AA-125, August 27, 2003) .
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES AND THE 

COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 106 / Monday, June 2, 2008 / Notices 31507 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 08–5–182, 

expiration date June 30, 2008. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1014, 1016, and 

1017 (Review)] 

Polyvinyl Alcohol from China, Japan, 

and Korea 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on polyvinyl alcohol from China, Japan, 

and Korea. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on polyvinyl 

alcohol from China, Japan, and Korea 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of material injury. 

Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, 

interested parties are requested to 

respond to this notice by submitting the 

information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is July 22, 2008. Comments 

on the adequacy of responses may be 

filed with the Commission by August 

15, 2008. For further information 

concerning the conduct of these reviews 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: June 2, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background—On July 2, 2003, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) 

issued an antidumping duty order on 

imports of polyvinyl alcohol from Japan 

(68 FR 39518). On October 1, 2003, 

Commerce issued antidumping duty 

orders on imports of polyvinyl alcohol 

from China and Korea (68 FR 56620, 

56621). The Commission is conducting 

reviews to determine whether 

revocation of the orders would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury to the domestic industry 

within a reasonably foreseeable time. It 

will assess the adequacy of interested 

party responses to this notice of 

institution to determine whether to 

conduct full reviews or expedited 

reviews. The Commission’s 

determinations in any expedited 

reviews will be based on the facts 

available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions—The following 

definitions apply to these reviews: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year reviews, as 

defined by Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Countries in these 

reviews are China, Japan, and Korea. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determinations, the Commission 

defined the Domestic Like Product as all 

domestically produced polyvinyl 

alcohol meeting the specifications stated 

in Commerce’s scope definition. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determinations, 

the Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as all domestic producers of 

polyvinyl alcohol. 

(5) The Order Dates are the dates that 

the antidumping duty orders under 

review became effective. In the review 

concerning Japan, the Order Date is July 

2, 2003. In the reviews concerning 

China and Korea, the Order Date is 

October 1, 2003. 

(6) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list—Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the reviews. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official recently has advised that a fiveyear review is no longer considered the 

‘‘same particular matter’’ as the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 

207, the post employment statute for 

Federal employees, and Commission 

rule 201.15(b)(19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are no 

longer required to seek Commission 

approval to appear in a review under 

Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if 

the corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205–

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the reviews. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
31508 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 106 / Monday, June 2, 2008 / Notices 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification—Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with these 

reviews must certify that the 

information is accurate and complete to 

the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In 

making the certification, the submitter 

will be deemed to consent, unless 

otherwise specified, for the 

Commission, its employees, and 

contract personnel to use the 

information provided in any other 

reviews or investigations of the same or 

comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions—Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is July 22, 2008. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct expedited 

or full reviews. The deadline for filing 

such comments is August 15, 2008. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of sections 201.8 and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules and any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in 

accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the reviews 

must be served on all other parties to 

the reviews (as identified by either the 

public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the reviews you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information—Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determinations in the reviews. 

Information to be Provided in 

Response to this Notice of Institution: If 

you are a domestic producer, union/ 

worker group, or trade/business 

association; import/export Subject 

Merchandise from more than one 

Subject Country; or produce Subject 

Merchandise in more than one Subject 

Country, you may file a single response. 

If you do so, please ensure that your 

response to each question includes the 

information requested for each pertinent 

Subject Country. As used below, the 

term ‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address if available) and name, 

telephone number, fax number, and email address of the certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on the Domestic Industry in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in each Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries since 

the Order Dates. 

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2007 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/ 

worker group or trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms in 

which your workers are employed/ 

which are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) the quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country(ies), provide 

the following information on your 

firm’s(s’) operations on that product 

during calendar year 2007 (report 

quantity data in pounds and value data 

in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from each Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from each 

Subject Country; and 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from each Subject Country. 

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject 

Country(ies), provide the following 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 106 / Monday, June 2, 2008 / Notices 31509 

information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2007 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars, landed and duty-paid at the 

U.S. port but not including 

antidumping). If you are a trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(10) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Countries since the Order 

Dates, and significant changes, if any, 

that are likely to occur within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. Supply 

conditions to consider include 

technology; production methods; 

development efforts; ability to increase 

production (including the shift of 

production facilities used for other 

products and the use, cost, or 

availability of major inputs into 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

importation in foreign markets or 

changes in market demand abroad). 

Demand conditions to consider include 

end uses and applications; the existence 

and availability of substitute products; 

and the level of competition among the 

Domestic Like Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in the Subject Countries, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(11) (Optional) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 19, 2008. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–11528 Filed 5–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Four Consent 

Decrees Pursuant To the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act 

Notice is hereby given that on May 22, 

2008, four proposed consent decrees in 

United States v. Belle Tire Distr., Inc., et 

al., No. 06cv0816, were lodged with the 

United States District Court for the 

Western District of Michigan. 

In this cost recovery action brought 

pursuant to the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607, the 

United States sought recovery of 

unreimbursed past response costs and 

prejudgment interest incurred by the 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency for a removal action at the Carl’s 

Tire Retreading Site near Grawn in 

Grand Traverse County, Michigan. 

Under the four proposed consent 

decrees, fifteen defendants will pay a 

total of $2,020,200 to the Hazardous 

Substance Superfund. 

The Department of Justice will accept 

comments relating to the four proposed 

consent decrees for a period of thirty 

(30) days from the date of publication of 

this notice. Comments should be 

addressed to the Assistant Attorney 

General, Environment and Natural 

Resources Division, and mailed either 

electronically to pubcommentees.enrd@usdoj.gov or in hard copy to 

P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611. 

Comments should refer to United States 

v. Belle Tire Distr., Inc., et al., Case No. 

06cv0816 (W.D. Mich.) and D.J. 

Reference No. 90–11–3–09026. 

The four proposed consent decrees 

may be examined at: (1) The Office of 

the United States Attorney for the 

Western District of Michigan, 330 Iona 

Avenue, Suite 501, Grand Rapids, 

Michigan 49503, (616) 456–2404; and 

(2) the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (Region 5), 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604–3590 (contact Steven P. Kaiser 

(312–353–3804)). During the comment 

period, the proposed consent decrees 

may also be examined on the following 

Department of Justice Web site: http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decree.html. Copies of the 

proposed consent decrees may also be 

obtained by mail from the Department 

of Justice Consent Decree Library, P.O. 

Box 7611, 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 refer to the referenced case and 

D.J. Reference No. 90–11–3–09026, and 

enclose a check in the amount of $20.25 

for the four consent decrees (81 pages at 

25 cents per page reproduction costs), 

made payable to the U.S. Treasury. 

William D. Brighton, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E8–12112 Filed 5–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–CW–P 

31974 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all imports of subject 

merchandise as described in the ‘‘Scope 

of Investigation’’ section, that are 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after October 17, 

2007, which is 90 days prior to the date 

of publication of the preliminary 

determination in the Federal Register, 

except for imports from Yulong. In 

specific regard to Yulong, we are 

directing CBP to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of subject 

merchandise as described in the ‘‘Scope 

of Investigation’’ section, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after January 25, 

2008, which is 90 days prior to the date 

of publication of the amended 

preliminary determination in the 

Federal Register. See Amended 

Preliminary Determination. We will 

instruct CBP to continue to require a 

cash deposit or the posting of a bond for 

all companies based on the estimated 

weighted–average dumping margins 

shown above. The suspension of 

liquidation instructions will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

International Trade Commission 

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, upon further instruction by 

the Department, 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 is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: May 29, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

Comment 1: Whether the Scope 

Language Should Include End–Use 

Definition and Reference to End–Use 

Applications 

Comment 2: Whether the Department 

Should Graduate the People’s Republic 

of China to Market Economy Status 

Comment 3: Whether the Department 

Should Calculate a Company–Specific 

Separate Rate for Weifang East Pipe 

Comment 4: Whether the Department 

Should Find Weifang East Pipe to be a 

Market–Oriented Enterprise 

Comment 5: Whether the Department 

Should Utilize Weifang East Pipe’s 

Actual Hot–Rolled Costs When 

Calculating an AD Margin Due to the 

Existence of the Companion 

Countervailing Duty Investigation 

Comment 6: Whether a Double–Remedy 

Results from the Simultaneous 

Application of Non–Market Economy 

AD and Countervailing Duty 

Methodologies 

Comment 7: Whether the Department’s 

Amended Preliminary Determination 

Violated Legal Principles 

Comment 8: Whether the Department 

Should Employ Weifang East Pipe’s 

Suggested Analytical Approach For 

Calculating Its Company–Specific 

Margin 

Comment 9: Whether the Department 

Should Assign Weifang East Pipe’s 

Company–Specific AD Rate to All 

Cooperative Separate Rate Respondents 

Comment 10: Whether the Department 

Should Make an Adjustment for 

Countervailable Export Subsidies 

Comment 11: Whether the Department 

Should Use the Highest Petition Margin 

as the Adverse Facts Available Rate 

Comment 12: Whether the Department 

Should Find That Critical 

Circumstances Do Not Exist for Yulong 

Comment 13: Whether the Department 

Should Analyze Critical Circumstances 

on an Importer–Specific Basis in its 

Critical Circumstances Analysis 

Comment 14: Whether the Department 

Should Include June 2007 in the Base 

Period Rather than the Comparison 

Period in its Critical Circumstances 

Analysis 

[FR Doc. E8–12608 Filed 6–4–08; 8:45 am] 

Billing Code: 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the 

antidumping duty orders listed below. 

The International Trade Commission 

(‘‘the Commission’’) is publishing 

concurrently with this notice its notice 

of Institution of Five-Year Review which 

covers the same orders. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 2, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. For 

information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) 

and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). 

Guidance on methodological or 

analytical issues relevant to the 

Department’s conduct of Sunset 

Reviews is set forth in the Department’s 

Policy Bulletin 98.3—Policies Regarding 

the Conduct of Five-Year (’’Sunset’’) 

Reviews of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

duty orders: 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices 31975 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests of 

that five-day deadline based upon a showing of 

good cause. 

DOC 

Case No. 

ITC 

Case No. Country Product Department Contact 

A–570–879 ........................ 731–TA–1014 .................... PRC ................................... Polyvinyl Alcohol ............... Brandon Farlander, (202) 

482–0182. 

A–588–861 ........................ 731–TA–1016 .................... Japan ................................ Polyvinyl Alcohol ............... Brandon Farlander, (202) 

482–0182. 

A–580–850 ........................ 731–TA–1017 .................... Korea ................................. Polyvinyl Alcohol ............... Brandon Farlander, (202) 

482–0182. 

A–570–878 ........................ 731–TA–1013 .................... PRC ................................... Saccharin .......................... Andrea Berton, (202) 482–

4037. 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s sunset 

Internet Web site at the following 

address: ‘‘http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’

All submissions in this Sunset Review 

must be filed in accordance with the 

Department’s regulations regarding 

format, translation, service, and 

certification of documents. These rules 

can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for this 

proceeding. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 10 

days of the publication of the Notice of 

Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The required contents of the notice of 

intent to participate are set forth at 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii) as set forth below. 

Information Required From Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) wishing 

to participate in this Sunset Review 

must respond not later than 15 days 

after the date of publication in the 

Federal Register of this notice of 

initiation by filing a notice of intent to 

participate. The required contents of the 

notice of intent to participate are set 

forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In 

accordance with the Department’s 

regulations, if we do not receive a notice 

of intent to participate from at least one 

domestic interested party by the 15-day 

deadline, the Department will 

automatically revoke the order without 

further review. See 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order-specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order-specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c). 

Dated: May 30, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–12611 Filed 6–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Availability of Seats for the Gray’s Reef 

National Marine Sanctuary Advisory 

Council 

AGENCY: Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean 

Service (NOS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

Department of Commerce (DCC). 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

applications. 

SUMMARY: The Gray’s Reef National 

Marine Sanctuary (GRNMS or 

sanctuary) is seeking applicants for the 

following vacant seats on its Sanctuary 

Advisory Council (council) Charter/ 

Commercial Fishing and University 

Education. Applicants are chosen based 

upon their particular expertise and 

experience in relation to the seat for 

which they are applying; community 

and professional affiliations; philosophy 

regarding the protection and 

management of marine resources; and 

possibly the length of residence in the 

area affected by the sanctuary. 

Applicants who are chosen as members 

should expect to serve three-year terms, 

pursuant to the council’s Charter. 

DATES: Applications are due by July 15, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: Application kits may be 

obtained from Becky Shortland, Council 

Coordinator 

(becky.shortland@noaa.gov), 10 Ocean 

Science Circle, Savannah, GA 31411; 

912–598–2381). Completed applications 

should be sent to the same address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Becky Shortland, Council Coordinator 

(becky.shortland@noaa.gov), 10 Ocean 

Science Circle, Savannah, GA 31411; 

912–598–2381. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

sanctuary advisory council was 

established in August 1999 to provide 

advice and recommendations on 

management and protection of the 

sanctuary. The advisory council, 

through its members, also serves as 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 16, 2008 / Notices 53443 

1Commissioner Lane dissenting with respect to 

China and Japan. Commissioner Pinkert dissenting 

with respect to Japan. 

the sale for importation, and the sale 

within the United States after 

importation of certain intermediate bulk 

containers by reason of infringement of 

certain claims of United States Patent 

Nos. 4,909,387; 5,253,777; and 

5,673,630. 73 FR 13919 (March 14, 

2008). The complaint named Shanghai 

Kingtainer Packaging Container Co., Ltd. 

of China (‘‘Kingtainer’’) and Novus 

International, Inc. of St. Louis, Missouri 

(‘‘Novus’’) as respondents. 

Novus was terminated from the 

investigation on the basis of a 

settlement. 

Schu ̈tz moved, pursuant to 

Commission Rule 210.16(b), for an order 

to show cause why Kingtainer should 

not be found in default, and for a 

finding of default upon the failure to 

show cause. The ALJ ordered Kingtainer 

to show cause, no later than the close of 

business on May 16, 2008, why it 

should not be found in default for 

failure to respond to the Complaint and 

Notice of Investigation (Order No. 4). No 

response to Order No. 4 was filed, and 

Kingtainer was found in default. On 

June 21, 2007, Kingtainer filed with the 

Commission (but did not serve) a letter 

that failed to comply with the order to 

show cause or the requirements of 19 

CFR 210.13(b) (response to complaint 

and notice of investigation), and that 

did not demonstrate any intention by 

Kingtainer to participate as a respondent 

in this investigation. Having adjudged 

Kingtainer in default, the Commission 

requested briefing from interested 

parties and the public on remedy, the 

public interest, and bonding. 73 FR 

36356 (June 26, 2008). 

Schu ̈tz and the Commission 

investigative attorney submitted briefing 

responsive to the Commission’s request 

on July 11, 2008. Each proposed a 

limited exclusion order directed to 

Kingtainer’s accused products, and 

recommended allowing entry under 

bond of 100 percent of entered value 

during the period of Presidential review. 

The Commission found that the 

statutory requirements of section 

337(g)(1)(A)–(E) (19 U.S.C. 

1337(g)(1)(A)–(E)) were met with respect 

to the defaulting respondent. 

Accordingly, pursuant to section 

337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) and 

Commission rule 210.16(c) (19 CFR 

210.16(c)), the Commission presumed 

the facts alleged in the complaint to be 

true. 

The Commission determined that the 

appropriate form of relief in this 

investigation is a limited exclusion 

order prohibiting the unlicensed entry 

of certain intermediate bulk containers 

by reason of infringement of claims 13, 

14, 16, 17, and 31 of U.S. Patent No. 

4,909,387; claims 1, 6, 12, and 15 of U.S. 

Patent No. 5,253,777; and claim 1 of 

U.S. Patent No. 5,673,630; and that are 

manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, 

or imported by or on behalf of, 

respondent Kingtainer. The Commission 

further determined that the public 

interest factors enumerated in section 

337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) do not 

preclude issuance of the limited 

exclusion order. Finally, the 

Commission determined that the bond 

under the limited exclusion order 

during the Presidential review period 

shall be in the amount of 100 percent of 

the entered value of the imported 

articles. The Commission’s order was 

delivered to the President and the 

United States Trade Representative on 

the day of its issuance. 

The Commission has terminated this 

investigation. The authority for the 

Commission’s determination is 

contained in section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 

§ 1337), and sections 210.16(c) and 

210.41 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.16(c) and 210.41). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 11, 2008. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–21579 Filed 9–15–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1014, 1016, and 

1017 (Review)] 

Polyvinyl Alcohol From China, Japan, 

and Korea 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determinations to conduct full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on polyvinyl alcohol from 

China, Japan, and Korea. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on polyvinyl alcohol from China, 

Japan, and Korea would be likely to lead 

to continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. A schedule for the reviews will be 

established and announced at a later 

date. For further information concerning 

the conduct of these reviews and rules 

of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: September 5, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 5, 2008, the Commission 

determined that it should proceed to 

full reviews in the subject five-year 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act. The Commission found that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (72 

FR 31507, June 2, 2008) was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response with respect to Korea 

was adequate and decided to conduct a 

full review with respect to the 

antidumping duty order concerning 

polyvinyl alcohol from Korea. The 

Commission found that the respondent 

interested party group responses with 

respect to China and Japan were 

inadequate.1 However, the Commission 

determined to conduct full reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on polyvinyl alcohol from China and 

Japan to promote administrative 

efficiency in light of its decision to 

conduct a full review with respect to the 

order concerning polyvinyl alcohol from 

Korea. A record of the Commissioners’ 

votes, the Commission’s statement on 

adequacy, and any individual 

Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the 

Secretary and at the Commission’s Web 

site. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
53444 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 16, 2008 / Notices 

1 Vice Chairman Pearson dissenting with respect 

to the respondent interested party group response. 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 10, 2008. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–21537 Filed 9–15–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1013 (Review)] 

Saccharin From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct a full five-year 

review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on saccharin from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with a full 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on saccharin from China would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule 

for the review will be established and 

announced at a later date. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this review and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: September 5, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 5, 2008, the Commission 

determined that it should proceed to a 

full review in the subject five-year 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act. The Commission found that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (72 

FR 31504, June 2, 2008) was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response was inadequate.1 The 

Commission also found that other 

circumstances warranted conducting a 

full review. A record of the 

Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements will be available from the 

Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Dated: September 10, 2008. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–21536 Filed 9–15–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Office of Justice Programs, Office for 

Victims of Crime 

[OMB Number 1121–0142] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comments Requested 

ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review: Extension of 

a currently approved collection; Victim 

of Crime Act, Crime Victim Assistance 

Grant Program, Subgrant Award Report. 

Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of 

Justice Programs (OJP), Office for 

Victims of Crime (OVC) will be 

submitting the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

The proposed information collection is 

published to obtain comments from the 

public and affected agencies. Comments 

are encouraged and will be accepted for 

‘‘sixty days’’ until November 17, 2008. 

This process is conducted in accordance 

with 5 CFR 1320.10. 

If you have comments especially on 

the estimated public burden or 

associated response time, suggestions, 

or need a copy of the proposed 

information collection instrument with 

instructions or additional information, 

please contact DeLano Foster (202) 616– 

3612, Office for Victims of Crime, Office 

of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of 

Justice, 810 7th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20531. 

Written comments and suggestions 

from the public and affected agencies 

concerning the proposed collection of 

information are encouraged. Your 

comments should address one or more 

of the following four points: 

—Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

—Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

—Minimize the burden of the collection 

of information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms 

of information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Extension of a currently approved 

collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Victims of Crime Act, Victim Assistance 

Grant Program, Subgrant Award Report. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department of Justice sponsoring the 

collection: Form number: 1121–0142. 

Office for Victims of Crime, Office of 

Justice Programs, U.S. Department of 

Justice. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: State government. 

Other: None. The VOCA, Crime Victim 

Assistance Grant Program, Subgrant 

Award Report is a required submission 

by state grantees, within 90 days of their 

awarding a subgrant for the provision of 

crime victim services. VOCA and the 

Program Guidelines require each state 

victim assistance office to report to OVC 

on the impact of the Federal funds, to 

certify compliance with the eligibility 

requirements of VOCA, and to provide 

a summary of proposed activities. This 

information will be aggregated and serve 

as supporting documentation for the 

Director’s biennial report to the 

President and to the Congress on the


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Notices 54619 

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 November 17, 2008. Parties may 

also file written testimony in connection 

with their presentation at the hearing, as 

provided in section 207.24 of the 

Commission’s rules, and posthearing 

briefs, which must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.25 of the 

Commission’s rules. The deadline for 

filing posthearing briefs is December 2, 

2008; 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 investigations may submit a 

written statement of information 

pertinent to the subject of the 

investigations, including statements of 

support or opposition to the petition, on 

or before December 2, 2008. On 

December 15, 2008, 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 December 17, 

2008, but such final comments must not 

contain new factual information and 

must otherwise comply with section 

207.30 of the Commission’s rules. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of section 201.8 of the 

Commission’s rules; any submissions 

that contain BPI must also conform with 

the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II(C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

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 sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

investigations must be served on all 

other parties to the investigations (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: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 17, 2008. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–22086 Filed 9–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1014, 1016, and 

1017 (Review)] 

Polyvinyl Alcohol from China, Japan, 

and Korea 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on polyvinyl alcohol from 

China, Japan, and Korea. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of full reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

§ 1675(c)(5)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty orders on polyvinyl alcohol from 

China, Japan, and Korea would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: September 11, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Angela Wissler (202–708–5409), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On September 5, 2008, 

the Commission determined that 

responses to its notice of institution of 

the subject five-year reviews were such 

that full reviews pursuant to section 

751(c)(5) of the Act should proceed (73 

F.R. 53444, September 16, 2008). A 

record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements are available from the Office 

of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in these reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11 of the 

Commission’s rules, by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. A party that 

filed a notice of appearance following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the reviews need not 

file an additional notice of appearance. 

The Secretary will maintain a public 

service list containing the names and 

addresses of all persons, or their 

representatives, who are parties to the 

reviews. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the reviews. A party 

granted access to BPI following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the reviews 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 reviews will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on January 7, 

2009, and a public version will be 

issued thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.64 of the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
54620 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Notices 

reviews beginning at 9:30 a.m. on 

January 27, 2009, 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 January 21, 2009. 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 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on January 22, 

2009, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, 

and 207.66 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 to 

the reviews may submit a prehearing 

brief to the Commission. Prehearing 

briefs must conform with the provisions 

of section 207.65 of the Commission’s 

rules; the deadline for filing is January 

16, 2009. Parties may also file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the hearing, as provided 

in section 207.24 of the Commission’s 

rules, and posthearing briefs, which 

must conform with the provisions of 

section 207.67 of the Commission’s 

rules. The deadline for filing 

posthearing briefs is February 5, 2009; 

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 

reviews may submit a written statement 

of information pertinent to the subject of 

the reviews on or before February 5, 

2009. On March 4, 2009, 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 March 6, 2009, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with section 207.68 of the Commission’s 

rules. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in II 

(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

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 sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

reviews must be served on all other 

parties to the reviews (as identified by 

either the public or 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: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 17, 2008. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–22087 Filed 9–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed 

Settlement Agreement Under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) 

Notice is hereby given that on 

September 12, 2008, a proposed 

Settlement Agreement regarding the 

Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical 

Complex Superfund Site also known as 

the Coeur d’Alene Basin Site in Idaho 

and the Omaha Lead Site in Nebraska 

was filed with the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Southern 

District of Texas in In re Asarco LLC, 

No. 05–21207 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) (Docket 

No. 9101–6, Plan Exhibit 12–C). The 

proposed Agreement entered into by the 

United States on behalf of the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Department of Interior (DOI), and 

Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service (FS) and Asarco LLC provides, 

inter alia, that (A) with respect to the

Coeur d’Alene Basin Site, (i) the United 

States on behalf of EPA shall have an 

allowed general unsecured claim of 

$41.464 million for past costs and future 

oversight costs, (ii) the Successor Coeur 

d’Alene Custodial and Work Trust shall 

be paid $373.179 million to perform 

work, (iii) the United States on behalf of 

DOI and FS, as co-Natural Resources 

Trustees, shall have an allowed general 

unsecured claim of $67.5 million, (B) 

with respect to the Omaha Lead Site, the 

United States on behalf of EPA shall 

have an allowed general unsecured 

claim of $187.5 million, and (C) 

additional payments may be made with 

respect to the Coeur d’Alene Basin and 

Omaha Lead Sites relating to the 

Supplemental Distribution and 

Litigation Proceeds as provided in 

Debtors’ Plan of Reorganization. The 

Settlement Agreement is subject to 

confirmation of Debtors’ Plan of 

Reorganization. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

comments relating to the proposed 

Agreement for a period of thirty (30) 

days from the date of this publication. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and either e-mailed to 

pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or 

mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to In re 

Asarco LLC, DJ Ref. No. 90–11–3–08633. 

Commenters may request an 

opportunity for a public meeting in the 

affected area, in accordance with 

Section 7003(d) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

6973(d). 

The proposed Agreement may be 

examined at the Office of the United 

States Attorney for the Southern District 

of Texas, 800 North Shoreline Blvd, 

#500, Corpus Christi, TX 78476–2001, at 

the office of the Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 7, 901 North 

Fifth Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101, 

or at the office of the Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 10, 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 

98101. During the public comment 

period, the proposed Agreement may 

also be examined on the following 

Department of Justice Web site, http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

proposed Agreement 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, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
57596 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Notices 

reviews of this order and will conduct 

administrative reviews of subject 

merchandise entered prior to the 

effective date of revocation in response 

to appropriately filed requests for 

review. 

The five-year (sunset) review and this 

notice are in accordance with sections 

751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: September 29, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–23394 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–588–861, A–580–850, A–570–879] 

Polyvinyl Alcohol From Japan, the 

Republic of Korea, and the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of the 

Expedited Sunset Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On June 5, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated sunset reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on 

polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) from Japan, the 

Republic of Korea (Korea), and the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC) 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The 

Department has conducted expedited 

(120-day) sunset reviews for these 

orders pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of 

these sunset reviews, the Department 

finds that revocation of the antidumping 

duty orders would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 3, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Eastwood or Miriam Eqab, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3874 and (202) 

482–3693, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Background 

On June 5, 2008, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

sunset reviews of the antidumping duty 

orders on PVA from Japan, Korea, and 

the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of 

the Act. See Initiation of Five-Year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 73 FR 31974 (June 

5, 2008) (Notice of Initiation). 

The Department received notices of 

intent to participate from Celanese 

Chemicals, Ltd. and E.I. Dupont de 

Nemours & Co. (collectively, ‘‘the 

domestic interested parties’’) within the 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). The companies claimed 

interested party status under section 

771(9)(C) of the Act as manufacturers of 

a domestic like product in the United 

States. The Department also received a 

notice of intent to participate from two 

Japanese respondent interested parties: 

The Nippon Synthetic Chemical 

Industry Co., Ltd. and Marubeni 

Specialty Chemicals Inc. The companies 

claimed interested party status under 

section 771(9)(A) of the Act as a foreign 

producer and a U.S. importer, 

respectively, of the subject merchandise. 

The Department received complete 

substantive responses to the notice of 

initiation from the domestic interested 

parties within the 30-day deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We 

received no substantive responses from 

respondent interested parties with 

respect to any of the orders covered by 

these sunset reviews, nor was a hearing 

requested. As a result, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the 

Department is conducting expedited 

(120-day) sunset reviews of the 

antidumping duty orders for Japan, 

Korea, and the PRC. 

Scope of the Orders 

The merchandise covered by these 

orders is PVA. This product consists of 

all PVA hydrolyzed in excess of 80 

percent, whether or not mixed or 

diluted with commercial levels of 

defoamer or boric acid, except as noted 

below. 

The following products are 

specifically excluded from the scope of 

these orders: 

(1) PVA in fiber form. 

(2) PVA with hydrolysis less than 83 

mole percent and certified not for use in 

the production of textiles. 

(3) PVA with hydrolysis greater than 

85 percent and viscosity greater than or 

equal to 90 cps. 

(4) PVA with a hydrolysis greater than 

85 percent, viscosity greater than or 

equal to 80 cps but less than 90 cps, 

certified for use in an ink jet 

application. 

(5) PVA for use in the manufacture of 

an excipient or as an excipient in the 

manufacture of film coating systems 

which are components of a drug or 

dietary supplement, and accompanied 

by an end-use certification. 

(6) PVA covalently bonded with 

cationic monomer uniformly present on 

all polymer chains in a concentration 

equal to or greater than one mole 

percent. 

(7) PVA covalently bonded with 

carboxylic acid uniformly present on all 

polymer chains in a concentration equal 

to or greater than two mole percent, 

certified for use in a paper application. 

(8) PVA covalently bonded with thiol 

uniformly present on all polymer 

chains, certified for use in emulsion 

polymerization of non-vinyl acetic 

material. 

(9) PVA covalently bonded with 

paraffin uniformly present on all 

polymer chains in a concentration equal 

to or greater than one mole percent. 

(10) PVA covalently bonded with 

silan uniformly present on all polymer 

chains certified for use in paper coating 

applications. 

(11) PVA covalently bonded with 

sulfonic acid uniformly present on all 

polymer chains in a concentration level 

equal to or greater than one mole 

percent. 

(12) PVA covalently bonded with 

acetoacetylate uniformly present on all 

polymer chains in a concentration level 

equal to or greater than one mole 

percent. 

(13) PVA covalently bonded with 

polyethylene oxide uniformly present 

on all polymer chains in a concentration 

level equal to or greater than one mole 

percent. 

(14) PVA covalently bonded with 

quaternary amine uniformly present on 

all polymer chains in a concentration 

level equal to or greater than one mole 

percent. 

(15) PVA covalently bonded with 

diacetoneacrylamide uniformly present 

on all polymer chains in a concentration 

level greater than three mole percent, 

certified for use in a paper application. 

The merchandise subject to these 

orders is currently classifiable under 

subheading 3905.30.00 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of these 

orders is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these reviews are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders on Polyvinyl Alcohol from 

Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the 

People’s Republic of China’’ from 

Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, to 

David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration (September 

29, 2008) (Decision Memo), which is 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Notices 57597 

1 In its request for review, Golden Banyan 

indicated that it had applied to the Zhangzhou 

Municipal Industrial and Commercial 

Administrative Bureau (Commercial Administrative 

Bureau) to change its name to Fujian Golden 

Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd. On December 

21, 2007, the Commercial Administrative Bureau 

granted Golden Banyan advanced approval for the 

company’s requested name change. At the time it 

submitted the request for new shipper review, 

however, Golden Banyan was still waiting for the 

name change to apply to the company’s business 

license and certificate of approval. 

2As we indicated in the initiation notice, Golden 

Banyan’s shipment entered the United States 

shortly after the anniversary month. Therefore, for 

the reasons given in the initiation notice, we 

extended the POR to include Golden Banyan’s 

shipment. See Initiation Notice at 18772. 

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 margins likely to 

prevail if the orders were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in these reviews and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit, room 

1117 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. 

Final Results of Reviews 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on PVA from 

Japan, Korea, and the PRC would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the following 

weighted-average percentage margins: 

Manufacturers/exporters/ 

producers 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

Japan: 

Denki Kagaku Kogyo 

Kabushiki Kaisha ............... 144.16 

Japan VAM & POVAL Co., 

Ltd ...................................... 144.16 

Kuraray Co., Ltd .................... 144.16 

The Nippon Synthetic Chemical Industry Co., Ltd ......... 144.16 

All-Others Rate ..................... 76.78 

Korea: 

DC Chemical Company, Ltd 38.74 

All-Others Rate ..................... 32.08 

PRC: 

Sinopec Sichuan Vinylon 

Works ................................ 5.51 

PRC-Wide Rate .................... 97.86 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective orders 

is hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: September 29, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–23455 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–851] 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 3, 2008. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is currently 

conducting a new shipper review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

preserved mushrooms from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC) covering the 

period February 1, 2007, through 

February 29, 2008. We preliminarily 

determine that the sale made by 

Zhangzhou Golden Banyan Foodstuffs 

Industrial Co., Ltd. (Golden Banyan), 

was not made below normal value (NV). 

If these preliminary results are adopted 

in our final results of this review, we 

will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 

duties on entries of subject merchandise 

during the period of review (POR) for 

any importer-specific assessment rates 

that are above de minimis. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2924 or (202) 482– 

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 19, 1999, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

amended final determination and 

antidumping duty order on certain 

preserved mushrooms from the PRC. 

See Notice of Amendment of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

From the People’s Republic of China, 64 

FR 8308 (February 19, 1999) (Order). On 

February 29, 2008, we received a timely 

new shipper review request in 

accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Tariff Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(c), from 

exporter and producer, Golden Banyan.1

On April 7, 2008, the Department 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register initiating a new shipper review 

for Golden Banyan. See Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of New 

Shipper Review, 73 FR 18772 (April 7, 

2008) (Initiation Notice). 

We issued the standard antidumping 

duty questionnaire, along with the 

standard importer questionnaire for new 

shipper reviews, on April 8, 2008, and 

received responses in May and June 

2008. We issued supplemental 

questionnaires covering sections A, C, 

and D of the original questionnaire on 

July 8, 2008, August 7, 2008, and 

August 22, 2008, respectively, and 

received timely responses to those 

questionnaires. 

Period of Review 

The POR covers February 1, 2007, 

through February 29, 2008.2

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are certain preserved mushrooms, 

whether imported whole, sliced, diced, 

or as stems and pieces. The certain 

preserved mushrooms covered under 

this order are the species Agaricus 

bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. 

‘‘Certain Preserved Mushrooms’’ refers 

to mushrooms that have been prepared 

or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and 

sometimes slicing or cutting. These 

mushrooms are then packed and heated 

in containers including, but not limited 

to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid 

medium, including, but not limited to, 

water, brine, butter or butter sauce. 

Certain preserved mushrooms may be 

imported whole, sliced, diced, or as 

stems and pieces. Included within the 

scope of this order are ‘‘brined’’ 

mushrooms, which are presalted and 

packed in a heavy salt solution to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICE


S
 
1

 Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane found the respondent interested party group response

was adequate in the review of the order on subject merchandise from China.

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION’S DETERMINATIONS ON ADEQUACY

in

Polyvinyl Alcohol from China, Japan, and Korea

Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1014, 731-TA-1016, and 731-TA-1017 (Review)

On September 5, 2008, the Commission unanimously determined that it should proceed

to full reviews in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5).

In response to the notice instituting five-year reviews of the antidumping duty orders on

imports of polyvinyl alcohol from the People’s Republic of China (“China”), Japan, and Korea,

the Commission received six responses. The petitioners in the original investigations, domestic

producers Celanese Chemicals, Ltd. (“Celanese”) and E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.

(“DuPont”), filed a joint submission. Solutia Inc. (“Solutia”), a domestic producer that captively

consumes all of its polyvinyl alcohol production, also filed a response to the notice of institution. 

The Commission found each of these domestic interested party responses to the notice of

institution to be individually adequate. Based on the current record, because Celanese, DuPont,

and Solutia account for all known U.S. polyvinyl alcohol production, the Commission

additionally found that the domestic interested party group response to the notice of institution

was adequate.

With respect to the review on polyvinyl alcohol from China, the Commission received

two responses to the notice of institution, one from Anhui Wanwei Updated High Tech Chemical

Industry Co. Ltd. and one from Hunan Xiangwei Co. Ltd., both producers of the subject

merchandise in China. The Commission found each of these respondent interested party

responses to the notice of institution to be individually adequate. The current record suggests

that there are several other producers of subject merchandise in China that may have accounted

for a much greater share of the production of subject merchandise in China and/or the exports of

subject merchandise from China during the original investigations and/or subsequent to

Commerce’s issuance of the underlying antidumping duty order. In light of these facts, the

Commission determined that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate in

this review.1

With respect to the review on polyvinyl alcohol from Japan, one respondent interested

party filed a response to the notice of institution, Japan VAM & POVAL Co. Ltd. (“JVP”), a

producer of subject merchandise in Japan that exported subject merchandise to the United States

during the original investigations and subsequent to Commerce’s imposition of the antidumping

duty order on subject merchandise from Japan. The current record suggests that three additional

firms produced subject merchandise in Japan and/or exported subject merchandise to the United
2

 Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane and Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert found that the

respondent interested party group response was adequate in the review of the order on subject

merchandise from Japan. They took into consideration JVP’s status as a substantial producer of

subject merchandise in Japan, and its prior exports to the United States.

States during the original investigations and/or subsequent to Commerce’s imposition of the

antidumping duty order on subject merchandise from Japan. Thus, although the Commission

found that JVP’s response to the notice of institution was individually adequate, given JVP’s

share of Japanese production and exports to United States, the Commission determined that the

group respondent interested party response was inadequate in this review.2

With respect to the review on polyvinyl alcohol from Korea, the Commission received

one response to the notice of institution from DC Chemical, a producer and exporter of subject

merchandise in Korea. The Commission found that this response to the notice of institution was

individually adequate, and because DC Chemical is the only known producer of subject

merchandise in Korea, the Commission further determined that the respondent interested party

group response was adequate in this review.

Notwithstanding the Commission’s determination that the respondent interested party

group response was inadequate with respect to the reviews of the orders on subject merchandise

from China and Japan, given the Commission’s decision to conduct a full review of the order on

subject merchandise from Korea, the Commission unanimously determined to conduct full

reviews of the orders on polyvinyl alcohol from China, Japan, and Korea in order to promote

administrative efficiency.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and

the Commission’s web site (www.usitc.gov).
B-1

APPENDIX B

COMMISSION’S HEARING WITNESS LIST

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s

hearing:

Subject: Polyvinyl Alcohol from China, Japan, and Korea

Inv. Nos.: 731-TA-1014, 1016, and 1017 (Review)

Date and Time: January 27, 2009 - 9:35 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with these reviews in the Main Hearing Room, 500 E Street (room

101), SW, Washington, D.C.

In Support of Continuation of

 Antidumping Duty Orders:

WilmerHale

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Celanese, Ltd.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.

Lou Purvis, General Manager, Polyvinyl

Alcohol Business, Celanese, Ltd.

Laura Korte, Vinyls Business Manager, 

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.

Eugene Bartolomeo, Product Line Manager, 

Celanese, Ltd.

Jeanne Walker, Associate General Counsel, 

Celanese International Corporation

Miriam Ronchi, Elvanol Product Manager, 

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.

Elaine Olsen, International Trade Specialist, 

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.

John D. Greenwald )

Ronald I. Meltzer ) – OF COUNSEL

Patrick McLain )
B-4

In Opposition to Continuation of

 Antidumping Duty Orders:

Arnold & Porter LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Solutia Inc. (“Solutia”)

Michael Berezo, Vice President, Global Procurement,

Solutia

David McCool, Vice President and Deputy General

Counsel, Solutia

Tim Feast, President, Saflex, Solutia

Richard Boltuck, Economist, CRA International

Michael T. Shor )

) – OF COUNSEL

Sarah A. Friedman )
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

Table C-1

PVA: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2003-07, January-September 2007, and January-September 2008

(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

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2003-07 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (nonsubject) . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (nonsubject) . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,869 5,519 6,155 6,662 4,539 4,329 1,295 -22.7 -6.0 11.5 8.2 -31.9 -70.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,011 3,795 4,521 4,973 3,813 3,645 1,454 -4.9 -5.4 19.1 10.0 -23.3 -60.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.68 $0.69 $0.73 $0.75 $0.84 $0.84 $1.12 22.9 0.6 6.8 1.6 12.5 33.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,014 126 4 44 0 0 0 -100.0 -93.7 -96.6 920.0 -100.0 (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,500 114 44 85 0 0 0 -100.0 -92.4 -61.7 93.4 -100.0 (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.74 $0.90 $10.17 $1.93 (2) (2) (2) (2) 21.5 1024.2 -81.0 (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,539 28,117 20,777 23,354 26,127 18,207 24,903 11.0 19.4 -26.1 12.4 11.9 36.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,402 19,048 16,654 19,340 24,012 16,395 27,466 46.4 16.1 -12.6 16.1 24.2 67.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.70 $0.68 $0.80 $0.83 $0.92 $0.90 $1.10 31.9 -2.8 18.3 3.3 11.0 22.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,871 5,120 7,780 10,413 11,346 8,397 5,816 132.9 5.1 52.0 33.8 9.0 -30.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,481 5,009 7,795 9,876 11,807 8,494 7,454 163.5 11.8 55.6 26.7 19.6 -12.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.92 $0.98 $1.00 $0.95 $1.04 $1.01 $1.28 13.1 6.3 2.4 -5.3 9.7 26.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (nonsubject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,410 33,236 28,557 33,767 37,473 26,604 30,720 31.9 17.0 -14.1 18.2 11.0 15.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,883 24,057 24,449 29,215 35,819 24,889 34,920 71.5 15.2 1.6 19.5 22.6 40.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.74 $0.72 $0.86 $0.87 $0.96 $0.94 $1.14 30.0 -1.5 18.3 1.1 10.5 21.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.

C-3
Table C-1--Continued

PVA: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2003-07, January-September 2007, and January-September 2008

(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

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2003-07 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (pounds per hour) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

 (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 official Commerce statistics and from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-4
Table C-2

PVA: Summary data concerning the U.S. open market, 2003-07, January-September 2007, and January-September 2008

(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

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2003-07 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (nonsubject) . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (nonsubject) . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,869 5,519 6,155 6,662 4,539 4,329 1,295 -22.7 -6.0 11.5 8.2 -31.9 -70.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,011 3,795 4,521 4,973 3,813 3,645 1,454 -4.9 -5.4 19.1 10.0 -23.3 -60.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.68 $0.69 $0.73 $0.75 $0.84 $0.84 $1.12 22.9 0.6 6.8 1.6 12.5 33.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,014 126 4 44 0 0 0 -100.0 -93.7 -96.6 920.0 -100.0 (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,500 114 44 85 0 0 0 -100.0 -92.4 -61.7 93.4 -100.0 (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.74 $0.90 $10.17 $1.93 (2) (2) (2) (2) 21.5 1024.2 -81.0 (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,539 28,117 20,777 23,354 26,127 18,207 24,903 11.0 19.4 -26.1 12.4 11.9 36.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,402 19,048 16,654 19,340 24,012 16,395 27,466 46.4 16.1 -12.6 16.1 24.2 67.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.70 $0.68 $0.80 $0.83 $0.92 $0.90 $1.10 31.9 -2.8 18.3 3.3 11.0 22.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,871 5,120 7,780 10,413 11,346 8,397 5,816 132.9 5.1 52.0 33.8 9.0 -30.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,481 5,009 7,795 9,876 11,807 8,494 7,454 163.5 11.8 55.6 26.7 19.6 -12.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.92 $0.98 $1.00 $0.95 $1.04 $1.01 $1.28 13.1 6.3 2.4 -5.3 9.7 26.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (nonsubject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,410 33,236 28,557 33,767 37,473 26,604 30,720 31.9 17.0 -14.1 18.2 11.0 15.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,883 24,057 24,449 29,215 35,819 24,889 34,920 71.5 15.2 1.6 19.5 22.6 40.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.74 $0.72 $0.86 $0.87 $0.96 $0.94 $1.14 30.0 -1.5 18.3 1.1 10.5 21.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers':

 U.S. commercial shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net commercial sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

 (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 official Commerce statistics and from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-5
 
D-1

APPENDIX D

RESPONSES OF U.S. PRODUCERS, U.S. IMPORTERS, U.S. PURCHASERS,

AND FOREIGN PRODUCERS CONCERNING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF

REVOCATION

D-3

U.S. PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any anticipated changes to the character of

their operations or organization relating to the production of PVA in the future if the subject

antidumping duty orders (China, Japan, and Korea) on PVA were to be revoked. (Question II-3.) 

The following are quotations from the responses of U.S. producers.

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe the significance of the existing antidumping

duty orders covering imports of PVA from China, Japan, and Korea in terms of its effect on their

firm’s production capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment,

revenues, costs, profits, cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures,

and asset values. (Question II-15.) The following are quotations from the responses of U.S.

producers.

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested U.S. producers to anticipate any changes to their production capacity,

production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs, profits, cash flow,

capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, or asset values relating to the

production of PVA in the future if the antidumping duty orders on PVA from China, Japan, and

Korea were to be revoked. (Question II-16.) The following are quotations from the responses of

U.S. producers.

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe any anticipated changes in the character of

their operations or organization relating to the importation of PVA in the future if the subject

antidumping duty orders (China, Japan, and Korea) were revoked. (Question II-3.) The following

are quotations from the responses of importers.

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe the significance of the existing antidumping

duty orders (China, Japan, and Korea) on PVA in terms of their effect on their imports, U.S.

shipments of imports, and inventories. (Question II-13.) The following are quotations from the

responses of importers.

* * * * * * *
D-4

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe any anticipated changes in their imports,

U.S. shipments of imports, or inventories of PVA in the future if the subject antidumping duty

orders (China, Japan, and Korea) on PVA were revoked. (Question II-14.) The following are

quotations from the responses of importers.

* * * * * * *

U.S. PURCHASERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

OF THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS

The Commission requested U.S. purchasers to describe the likely effects of any revocation of the

antidumping duty orders for imports of PVA from China, Japan, and/or Korea; and to discuss any

potential effects of revocation of the antidumping duty orders on (1) the future activities of their

firm and (2) the U.S. market as a whole. 

(1) Activities of your firm:

* * * * * * *

(2) Entire U.S. market: 

* * * * * * *

FOREIGN PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission requested foreign producers to describe any anticipated changes in the character

of their operations or organization relating to the production of PVA in the future if the subject

antidumping duty orders (China, Japan, and Korea) were to be revoked. (Question II-4.) The

following are quotations from the responses of foreign producers.

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested foreign producers to describe any anticipated changes in their

production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other

markets, or inventories relating to the production of PVA in the future if the subject antidumping

duty orders (China, Japan, and Korea) were to be revoked. (Question II-16.) The following are

quotations from the responses of foreign producers.

* * * * * * *
E-1

APPENDIX E

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS BY TYPE

E-3

Table E-1

PVA: U.S. producers’ shipments, by type, 2003-07, January - September 2007, and January -

September 2008

* * * * * * *
 
F-1

APPENDIX F

NONSUBJECT PRICE DATA

F-3

Table F-1 

PVA: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1, sold in

BAGS to end users, and margins of (overselling)/underselling, January 2003-September 2008

* * * * * * *