[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33775-33778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-14386]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-834]
Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Mexico: Notice of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from Quimica Amtex S.A. de C.V.
(Amtex), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on purified
carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from Mexico. The review covers exports of
the subject merchandise to the United States produced and exported by
Amtex; the period of review (POR) is July 1, 2008, through June 30,
2009.
We preliminarily find that Amtex has made sales at less than normal
value (NV) during the POR. 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 based on
differences between the export price (EP) or constructed export price
(CEP) and NV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested
to submit with the arguments: (1) A statement of the issues, (2) a
brief summary of the arguments, and (3) a table of authorities.
DATES: Effective Date: June 15, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner 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-
6312 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published the antidumping duty order on CMC from
Mexico on July 11, 2005. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders:
Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands,
and Sweden, 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005). On July 1, 2009, the
Department published the notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of CMC from Mexico for the period of July 1,
2008, through June 30, 2009. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request
Administrative Review, 74 FR 31406 (July 1, 2009). On July 22, 2009,
respondent Amtex requested an administrative review. On August 25,
2009, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of
initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 42873 (August 25,
2009).
On September 3, 2009, the Department issued its standard
antidumping duty questionnaire to Amtex. Amtex submitted its response
to section A of the Department's questionnaire on October 9, 2009
(Amtex Section A Response). Amtex submitted its response to sections B
and C of the Department's questionnaire on October 29, 2009 (Amtex
Sections B and C Response).
Period of Review
The POR is July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this order is all purified
carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), sometimes also referred to as purified
sodium CMC, polyanionic cellulose, or cellulose gum, which is a white
to off-white, non-toxic, odorless, biodegradable powder, comprising
sodium CMC that has been refined and purified to a minimum assay of 90
percent. Purified CMC does not include unpurified or crude CMC, CMC
Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, and CMC that is cross-linked through
heat treatment. Purified CMC is CMC that has undergone one or more
purification operations which, at a minimum, reduce the remaining salt
and other by-product portion of the product to less than ten percent.
The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheading 3912.31.00. This
tariff classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes;
however, the written description of the scope of the order is
dispositive.
Date of Sale
The Department's regulations state that it will normally use the
date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records
kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale. See 19
CFR 351.401(i). However, if the Department is satisfied that ``a
different date * * * better reflects the date on which the exporter or
producer establishes the material terms of sale,'' the Department may
choose a different date. Id. Amtex has reported the definitive invoice
(as differentiated from pro forma invoice) as the invoice date. See
Amtex Section A Response at A20-A21.
With regard to the invoice date, Amtex bills some of its sales via
``delayed invoices'' in both the home and U.S. markets. Id. In these
instances, delivery is made to the customer and a pro forma invoice is
issued, but the subject merchandise remains in storage and continues to
be the property of Amtex until withdrawn for consumption by the
customer (usually at the end of a regular, monthly billing cycle), at
which time a definitive invoice is issued. Id. In Amtex's normal books
and records, it is this definitive invoice date (not the pro forma
invoice date) that is recorded as the date of sale. Id. Therefore, the
Department preliminarily determines that the definitive invoice date is
the date of sale provided that the definite invoice is issued on or
before the shipment date; and that the shipment date is the date of
sale where the invoice is issued after the shipment date. See Purified
Carboxymethylcellulose from Mexico: Preliminary Results Analysis
Memorandum for Quimica Amtex, S.A. de C.V., dated June 8, 2010
(Analysis Memorandum), for further discussion of date of sale. A public
version of this memorandum is on file in the Department's Central
Records Unit (CRU) located in Room 1117 of the main Department of
Commerce Building, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
[[Page 33776]]
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of CMC in the United States were made at
less than NV, we compared U.S. price to NV, as described in the
``Export Price,'' ``Constructed Export Price,'' and ``Normal Value''
sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), we calculated monthly
weighted-average NVs and compared these to individual U.S.
transactions. Because we determined Amtex made both EP and CEP sales
during the POR, we used both EP and CEP as the basis for U.S. price in
our comparisons.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered
all products produced by Amtex covered by the description in the
``Scope of the Order'' section, above, and sold in the home market
during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We relied on five
characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to
comparison sales of the foreign like product (listed in order of
priority): (1) Grade; (2) viscosity; (3) degree of substitution; (4)
particle size; and (5) solution gel characteristics. Where there were
no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S.
sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like
product on the basis of these product characteristics and the reporting
instructions listed in the Department's September 3, 2009,
questionnaire. Because there were contemporaneous sales of identical or
similar merchandise in the home market suitable for comparison to all
U.S. sales, we did not compare any U.S. sales to constructed value
(CV). See the CV section below.
Export Price (EP)
Section 772(a) of the Tariff Act defines EP as ``the price at which
the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the
date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise
outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United
States,'' as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Tariff Act. In
accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act, we used EP for a
number of Amtex's U.S. sales because these sales were made before the
date of importation and were sales directly to unaffiliated customers
in the United States, and because CEP methodology was not otherwise
indicated.
We based EP on the packed, delivered duty paid, cost and freight
(C&F) or free on board (FOB) prices to unaffiliated customers in the
United States. Amtex reported no price or billing adjustments, and no
discounts. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, which included, where
appropriate, foreign inland freight from the mill to the U.S. border,
inland freight from the border to the customer or warehouse, and U.S.
brokerage and handling. We made adjustment for direct expenses (credit
expenses) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act.
Constructed Export Price (CEP)
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Tariff Act, CEP is ``the
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be
sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by
or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or
by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser
not affiliated with the producer or exporter,'' as adjusted under
sections 772(c) and (d) of the Tariff Act. In accordance with section
772(b) of the Tariff Act, we used CEP for a number of Amtex's U.S.
sales because Amtex sold merchandise to its affiliate in the United
States, Amtex Chemicals LLC (Amtex Chemicals or ACUS), which, in turn,
sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. customers. See, e.g.,
Amtex's Section A Response at A2, A11-A12, and Exhibit A-4. We
preliminarily find these U.S. sales are properly classified as CEP
sales because they occurred in the United States and were made through
Amtex's U.S. affiliate, Amtex Chemicals, to unaffiliated U.S.
customers.
We based CEP on the packed, delivered duty paid or FOB warehouse
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Amtex reported
no price or billing adjustments, and no discounts or rebates. We made
deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, which included, where appropriate,
foreign inland freight to the border, foreign brokerage and handling,
customs duties, U.S. brokerage, U.S. inland freight, and U.S.
warehousing expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the
Tariff Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic
activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling
expenses (credit costs), inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling
expenses. We made an adjustment for CEP profit as set forth in the
Analysis Memorandum. See Analysis Memorandum at 11.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV,
we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign
like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a) of the Tariff Act. Because Amtex's
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was
greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the
subject merchandise, we determined the home market was viable. See
section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. Therefore, we based NV on home
market sales in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary
course of trade.
B. Price-to-Price Comparisons
We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers. Amtex
reported no billing adjustments, discounts or rebates in the home
market. We made deductions for movement expenses including, where
appropriate, foreign inland freight and insurance, pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. In addition, when comparing sales of
similar merchandise, we made adjustments for differences in cost
attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the
merchandise (i.e., DIFMER) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the
Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments for differences
in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS
adjustments for imputed credit expenses. Finally, we deducted home
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act.
C. Constructed Value (CV)
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, we base NV
on CV if we are unable to find a contemporaneous comparison market
match of identical or similar merchandise for the U.S. sale. Section
773(e) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the
cost of materials and fabrication employed in making the subject
merchandise, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses,
financial expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We found
contemporaneous market matches for all
[[Page 33777]]
the U.S. sales. Therefore, for these preliminary results, it was not
necessary to base NV on CV. For a more detailed explanation of our CV
analysis, which relies upon business proprietary information, please
see Analysis Memorandum at 10-13.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to
the extent practicable, we base NV on sales made in the comparison
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the export transaction. The
NV LOT is based on the starting price of sales in the home market or,
when NV is based on CV, on the LOT of the sales from which SG&A
expenses and profit are derived. With respect to CEP transactions in
the U.S. market, the CEP LOT is defined as the level of the constructed
sale from the exporter to the importer. See section 19 CFR
351.412(c)(1)(ii).
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer.
See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). If the comparison-market sales are at a
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of
the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more
remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for
determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of
the Tariff Act (the CEP offset provision). See, e.g., Certain Hot-
Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
17406, 17410 (April 6, 2005), results unchanged in Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled
Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil, 70 FR 58683
(October 7, 2005); see also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes From Canada, 67 FR 8781 (February 26,
2002) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 8.
For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the
price after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section
772(d)(3) of the Tariff Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United
States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We expect that if the
claimed LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller
should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that the LOTs are
different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities
of the seller should be dissimilar. See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware
from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decisions
Memorandum at Comment 6.
Amtex reported it sold CMC to end-users and distributors in the
home market and to end-users and distributors in the United States. For
the home market, Amtex identified two channels of distribution: end
users (channel 1) and distributors (channel 2). See Amtex's Section A
Response at A13. Amtex claimed a single level of trade in the home
market, stating that it performs essentially the same selling functions
to either category of customer. See Amtex's Section A Response at A17-
A18.
We obtained information from Amtex regarding the marketing stages
involved in making its reported home market and U.S. sales. Amtex
provided a table listing all selling activities it performs, and
comparing the levels of trade among each channel of distribution in
each market. See Amtex's Section A Response at Exhibit A-7. We reviewed
Amtex's claims concerning the intensity to which all selling functions
were performed for each home market channel of distribution and
customer category. For virtually all selling functions, the selling
activities of Amtex were identical in both channels, including sales
forecasting, personnel training, sales promotion, direct sales
personnel, technical assistance, warranty service, after-sales service
and arranging delivery. Id. Amtex described the level of activity as
independent of channel of distribution. See Amtex's Section A Response
at A16.
While we find some differences in the selling functions performed
between the home market end-user and distributor channels of
distribution, such differences are minor in that they are not the
principal selling functions but rather specific to a few customers and
rarely performed. See Amtex's Section A Response at Exhibit A-7. Based
on our analysis of all of Amtex's home market selling functions, we
agree with Amtex's characterization of all its home market sales as
being made at the same level of trade, the NV LOT.
In the U.S. market, Amtex reported a single level of trade for both
EP and CEP sales through two channels of distribution (i.e., end-users
and distributors). See Amtex Section C Response at C16. We examined the
record with respect to Amtex's EP sales and find that for all EP sales,
Amtex performed such selling functions as sales forecasting, sales
promotion, direct sales personnel, technical assistance, warranties,
after-sales services and arranging delivery. See Amtex's Section A
Response at Exhibit A-7. In terms of the number and intensity of
selling functions performed on EP sales, these were indistinguishable
between sales from Amtex to end users and to distributors. Id.
Accordingly, we agree with Amtex and preliminarily determine that all
EP sales were made at the same LOT.
We compared Amtex's EP level of trade to the single NV level of
trade found in the home market. However, while we find differences in
the levels of intensity performed for some of these functions between
the home market NV level of trade and the EP level of trade, such
differences are minor (specific to a few customers and rarely
performed) and do not establish distinct levels of trade between the
home market and the U.S. market. Based on our analysis of all of
Amtex's home market and EP selling functions, we find these sales were
made at the same level of trade.
For CEP sales, Amtex claims that the number and intensity of
selling functions performed by Amtex in making its sales to Amtex
Chemicals are lower than the number and intensity of selling functions
Amtex performed for its EP sales, and further claims that CEP sales are
at a less advanced stage than home market sales. See Amtex's Section A
Response at A17 and Exhibit A-7. Amtex specifically states that Amtex
``made no sales in the home market or other markets at the same level
of trade as its CEP sales for the U.S.'' See Amtex's Section A Response
at A17. However, we find that the CEP LOT is more advanced than the NV
LOT. Amtex's Section C Response indicates that Amtex's CEP sales are at
a more advanced marketing stage than are its home market sales. See
Amtex Sections B and C Response at C49-50 and Exhibit B12.1. Amtex
reports that many of the principal functions in both markets are
carried out by a single employee in the Mexico office. Based on the
allocation of that employee's time between CEP sales and other sales,
it is evident that the intensity of activity for the principal
functions is greater for CEP sales than other sales. Id.; see also
Exhibit A-1. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the CEP LOT
(that is, sales from Amtex to its U.S. affiliate) involves a much more
advanced stage of
[[Page 33778]]
distribution than the NV LOT. See Analysis Memorandum at 4-7.
Because we found the home market and U.S. CEP sales were made at
different LOTs, we examined whether a LOT adjustment or a CEP offset
may be appropriate in this review. As we found only one LOT in the home
market, it was not possible to make a LOT adjustment to home market
sales prices, because such an adjustment is dependent on our ability to
identify a pattern of consistent price differences between the home
market sales on which NV is based and home market sales at the CEP LOT.
See 19 CFR 351.412(d)(1)(ii). Furthermore, because the CEP LOT involves
a much more advanced stage of distribution than the NV LOT, it is not
possible to make a CEP offset to NV in accordance with section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act.
Currency Conversions
Amtex reported certain home market and U.S. sales prices and
adjustments in both U.S. dollars and Mexican pesos. Therefore, we made
peso-U.S. dollar currency conversions, where appropriate, based on the
exchange rates in effect on the date of the sale, as certified by the
Federal Reserve Board, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Tariff
Act.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily find the following
weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2008
through June 30, 2009:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Producer/exporter margin
(percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quimica Amtex, S.A. de C.V......................... 1.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose calculations performed within five
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty
days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the
party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of
participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing,
each party may make an affirmative presentation only on issues raised
in that party's case brief, and may make rebuttal presentations only on
arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the
first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case
briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these
preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal
briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no
later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19
CFR 351.309(d)(1). Parties who submit arguments in these proceedings
are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the
issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of
authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments must provide
the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any
such comments on diskette. The Department will issue final results of
this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of
the issues in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120
days of publication of these preliminary results.
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this
administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department
will calculate an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. Amtex has
reported entered values for all of its sales of subject merchandise to
the United States during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific duty assessment
rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of
the examined sales of that importer. These rates will be assessed
uniformly on all entries the respective importers made during the POR
if these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of
review. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct
CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that
importer. In accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends to
issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP on or after
41 days following the publication of the final results of review.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the
POR produced by the company included in these preliminary results that
the company did not know were destined for the United States. In such
instances we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the
``all others'' rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company or
companies involved in the transaction.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be
effective for all shipments of CMC from Mexico entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Amtex will
be the rate established in the final results of review, unless that
rate is less than 0.50 percent (de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR
351.106(c)(1)), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2)
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the less-than-
fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period
for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (3) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous
review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the
all-others rate of 12.61 percent from the LTFV investigation. See
Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from
Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands and Sweden, 70 FR 39734 (July 11,
2005).
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR
351.221(b)(4).
Dated: June 8, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-14386 Filed 6-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P