2006, subject imports as a percentage of total imports of CFSP by quantity were *** percent for China, *** percent for Korea, and at least 3.2 percent (but probably more, as discussed below) for Indonesia.69
In the case of the countervailing duty investigations, it is clear that imports from China and Korea are not negligible, because, as noted above, they exceed the applicable 3 percent threshold. We next consider whether imports from Indonesia exceeded the 4 percent threshold that is applicable to the countervailing duty investigation for subject imports from Indonesia.
Negligibility for Purposes of the Material Injury Analysis in the Countervailing Duty Investigation Concerning Subject Imports From Indonesia
Because Indonesia is a developing country as defined by the USTR, the applicable negligibility threshold for the countervailing duty investigation is 4 percent. Official import statistics show imports from Indonesia in the applicable period as being 3.2 percent of the volume of total imports.70 However, there are a number of indications in the record that the official import statistics undercount subject imports from Indonesia. Most significantly, data on exports of the subject product from Indonesia to the United States, reported to the Commission by Indonesian producers, show that these subject export amounts were significantly higher than the amounts reflected in official import statistics for 2005, interim 2005, and (to a lesser extent) interim 2006.71 Accordingly, for purposes of these preliminary determinations, we have determined that the most accurate way to measure Indonesian subject imports in the applicable period is to use monthly export data provided to the Commission by counsel to the Indonesian Respondents. These monthly export data show that subject merchandise from Indonesia accounted for 4.1 percent of total U.S. imports of the product in the 12 months preceding the filing of the petition.72 Accordingly, for purposes of these preliminary determinations we determine that subject imports from Indonesia were not negligible for purposes of the material injury analysis in the countervailing duty investigation concerning subject imports from Indonesia. We intend to further examine this issue in any final investigation.73
CR/PR at Table IV-4.
CR/PR at Table IV-4.
71 CR at IV-7, PR at IV-3. There are two other indications in the record that the official import statistics undercount subject imports from Indonesia. First, it appears that some imports of subject merchandise from Indonesia could have been misclassified and entered under tariff subheadings that are not among the ones listed in Commerce’s initiation notices. CR at IV-5, PR at IV-2. If this is the case, the official import statistics might undercount the relative percentage of imports from Indonesia. Second, we note that data from importer questionnaires show import levels that are substantially higher than official import statistics in all parts of the POI except interim 2006. CR at IV-7, PR at IV-3. We understand that the aggregate data from importer questionnaires may include some double-counting. See CR/PR at Table IV-1 n.2. Nonetheless, in light of the discrepancy between the Indonesian export data and the official import statistics, it appears to be unlikely that the discrepancy in the aggregate importer questionnaire data can be solely attributed to double-counting. CR at IV-5, PR at IV-2.
72 CR/PR at Table IV-4. We note that export data would show that subject merchandise from Indonesia accounted for the same percentage of total imports, 4.1 percent, if the data were lagged by one month to account for shipping time (i.e., for the period September 2005 through August 2006). CR/PR at Table IV-4 n.1.
73 The Indonesian Respondents argue that Section 771(24)(A)(iv) does not apply to developing countries in CVD investigations. That provision states that the Commission shall not treat imports as negligible if it determines that there is a potential that imports will imminently account for more than 3 percent of the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States. The Indonesian Respondents base their argument on a textual analysis of the negligibility provisions of the statute and on the legislative history of these provisions. We disagree with the position of Indonesian Respondents. The focus of Indonesian Respondents’ argument is that Section 771(B) of the Act sets out a separate and distinct test of negligibility for developing countries in countervailing duty investigations,