Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-824]

Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan: Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Amended Final Results of the Administrative Review of

the Antidumping Duty Order on Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On June 16, 1998, the Department of Commerce published the

final results in this administrative review (63 FR 32810). Subsequent

to the publication of the final results, we received timely comments

from E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. alleging a ministerial error. After

analyzing the comments submitted, we agree and are amending our final

results to correct this ministerial error. This amendment to the final

results is published in accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(c) (April 1997).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 16, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith at (202) 482-1766, or

Everett Kelly at (202) 482-4194, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20230.

APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS: Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act''), as amended, are

references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements

Act (``URAA''). Additionally, unless otherwise indicated all citations

to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR Part 353 (April 1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 16, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')

published in the Federal Register the final results of the

administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering the period

of May 15, 1996, through April 30, 1997, on polyvinyl alcohol from

Taiwan. See, Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 32810. Subsequently, on

June 18, 1998, respondent E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (``DuPont'')

submitted a ministerial error allegation. The petitioner, Air Products

and Chemicals, Inc., did not submit comments concerning DuPont's

clerical error allegation.

A summary of the allegation along with the Department's response is

discussed below. We are hereby amending our final results, pursuant to

Section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.28(c), to reflect the

correction of the error which is clerical in nature.

Scope of Review

The product covered by this review is polyvinyl alcohol (``PVA'').

PVA is a dry, white to cream-colored, water-soluble synthetic polymer.

Excluded from this review are PVAs covalently bonded with

acetoacetylate, carboxylic acid, or sulfonic acid uniformly present on

all polymer chains in a concentration equal to or greater than two mole

percent, and PVAs covalently bonded with silane uniformly present on

all polymer chains in a concentration equal to or greater than one-

tenth of one mole percent. PVA in fiber form is not included in the

scope of this review.

The merchandise under review 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, our written description of the scope

is dispositive.

Amended Final Results of Review

DuPont alleges that the Department made a ministerial error in

calculating constructed export price (``CEP'') for its sales of further

manufactured PVA. DuPont claims that the alleged ministerial error

occurred during the process wherein the Department, after the

preliminary results were published, changed the way it calculated CEP

for DuPont's sales of further manufactured PVA. In the preliminary

results, DuPont states, the Department calculated CEP the same way for

sales of imported PVA as it did for sales of further manufactured PVA.

In the preliminary results, we calculated CEP for sales of further

manufactured PVA by deducting from the starting price discounts and

rebates, movement expenses, and direct and indirect selling expenses

associated with DuPont's economic activities occurring in the United

States. We also deducted an amount for profit and further manufacturing

costs (see Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results for E.I.

duPont de Nemours & Co., dated February 2, 1998).

In its case brief, the petitioner contended that our computer

program failed to find comparable matches for PVA sold by DuPont in the

United States and Australia because of the omission of a critical

conversion factor. The petitioner indicated that since the further

manufactured product is comprised of only a fraction of the imported

PVA, the amount reported in DuPont's variable manufacturing costs for

sales of further manufactured merchandise represented the costs for

only that fraction of subject merchandise. Accordingly, the petitioner

argued that the Department should adjust the reported variable

manufacturing costs for U.S. sales of further manufactured merchandise

by

[[Page 38373]]

stating the per-unit costs on the same basis as the variable

manufacturing costs of the Australian sales (see Case Brief on behalf

of Petitioner Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. at page 19). DuPont did

not object to the petitioner's comment.

Because further manufactured PVA comprises only a percentage of

subject merchandise, we agreed with the petitioner that the prices,

costs and expenses involved in the further manufactured product should

be based on the same percentage of subject merchandise incorporated in

the further manufactured sales at issue. Accordingly, in the final

results, we adjusted the reported amounts of variable and total

manufacturing costs, gross unit price, and CEP selling expenses for

further manufactured PVA by a conversion factor (i.e., the value-added

ratios reported in DuPont's Section E submission) in order to state the

prices, costs, and expenses of further manufactured PVA on a per-unit

basis (USD/lb) of imported PVA (see Calculation Memorandum for the

Final Results for E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., dated June 9, 1998).

While DuPont agrees that the Department was correct in altering its

preliminary calculation of the CEP sales at issue, DuPont claims that

because the further manufactured PVA comprises only a percentage of

subject merchandise, the quantity involved in the further manufactured

product should also have been adjusted to reflect the same percentage

of subject merchandise incorporated in the further manufactured sales

at issue. Instead, DuPont asserts that for the final results, rather

than adjust the quantity to reflect the actual amount of PVA used, the

Department converted prices from units of dollars per kilogram of

further manufactured PVA to dollars per kilogram of imported PVA by

dividing the unit prices of further manufactured PVA by the above-

mentioned value-added ratios (see Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,

Sheet, and Strip from the Republic of Korea; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 42835, 42845 (August 17,

1995)(where the Department made the same type of adjustment to CEP

calculation for sales of further manufactured merchandise). Thus,

DuPont contends, the effect of multiplying these converted prices (in

dollars per kilogram of the imported PVA) by the total quantity of

further manufactured PVA was a significant overstatement of the

quantity of merchandise subject to antidumping duties (i.e., subject

merchandise) and, therefore, the amount of dumping. Thus, DuPont claims

that the Department should make this adjustment to the reported

quantity for its sales of further manufactured products.

We agree that a ministerial error was made in our margin

calculation as alleged by DuPont. Without adjusting the reported

quantity for DuPont's sales of further manufactured PVA to reflect the

amount of subject merchandise actually used in the further manufactured

sales, we incorrectly multiplied the value of imported PVA by the

quantity of further manufactured PVA when we should have used the

percentage of subject merchandise incorporated in the further

manufactured PVA. For a detailed discussion, see Memorandum to Louis

Apple, Office Director, from Team, dated July 6, 1998. See also,

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea:

Amendment of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,

63 FR 2200 (January 14, 1998), in which the Department amended its

final results due to a ministerial error in calculating interest

expense, which resulted in an overstatement of the interest expense

factor and, consequently, of the dumping margin.

Accordingly, we are amending our final results. We hereby determine

the following weighted-average margin existed for the period May 15,

1996, through April 30, 1997:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original Revised

Manufacturer/producer/exporter margin margin

(percent) (percent)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co....................... 9.46 4.20

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have

calculated an importer-specific duty assessment rate based on the ratio

of the total amount of AD duties calculated for the examined

transactions in the POR to the total entered value of the same

transactions. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of

that particular importer made during the POR. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions concerning the respondent directly to the

U.S. Customs Service.

The amended cash deposit requirement will be effective upon

publication of this notice of amended final results of this

administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act, at

the cash deposit rate for DuPont indicated above.

This deposit requirement shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next administrative review.

The amended final results of this administrative review are in

accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.28. This

amendment to the final results is published in accordance with 19 CFR

353.28(c).

Dated: July 9, 1998.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-18886 Filed 7-15-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P