[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48310-48319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-19730]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-421-811]
Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From the Netherlands; Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from petitioner Aqualon Company
(Aqualon), a division of Hercules Incorporated and a U.S. manufacturer
of purified carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), Akzo Nobel Functional
Chemicals B.V. (ANFC) and its U.S. affiliate, Akzo Nobel Functional
Chemicals LLC (AN-US), and CP Kelco B.V. (CP Kelco) and its U.S.
affiliates, CP Kelco U.S. Inc. (CP Kelco US) and J.M. Huber
Corporation, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on purified CMC
from the Netherlands. This administrative review covers imports of
subject merchandise produced and exported by ANFC and CP Kelco during
the period of review (POR) beginning July 1, 2008, through June 30,
2009.
We preliminarily determine that ANFC is the successor-in-interest
to Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry B.V. and that sales of subject
merchandise by ANFC and CP Kelco were made at less than normal value
during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final
results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to
assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries based on the
difference between the export price and normal value or the
constructed-export-price (CEP) and normal value. All interested parties
are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: August 10, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edythe Artman or Olga Carter, 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-
3931 or (202) 482-8221, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 11, 2005, the Department published the antidumping duty
order on purified CMC from the Netherlands. See Notice of Antidumping
Duty Orders: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, the
Netherlands, and Sweden, 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005) (CMC Order). On
July 1, 2009, the Department published an opportunity to request an
administrative review of this order for the period 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).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), Aqualon filed a July 20, 2009,
request that the Department conduct an administrative review of the
sales of subject merchandise made by ANFC and
[[Page 48311]]
CP Kelco during the POR. On July 29, 2009, CP Kelco and its U.S.
affiliates, CP Kelco US and J.M. Huber Corporation, requested a review
of CP Kelco's sales of subject merchandise and, on July 31, 2009, ANFC
and its U.S. affiliate, AN-US, similarly requested a review of ANFC's
sales of subject merchandise made during the POR.
On August 25, 2009, the Department published a notice of initiation
of this administrative review, covering sales, entries and/or shipments
of purified CMC from ANFC and CP Kelco, in the Federal Register. See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 42873 (August 25,
2009).
The Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to the
respondent parties on September 4, 2009. ANFC responded to the
questionnaire on October 13, 2009 (response to section A), and on
October 27, 2009 (sections B and C responses). CP Kelco filed its
questionnaire responses on September 28, 2009 (section A) and October
26, 2009 (sections B-D).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section
below, we requested that CP Kelco provide a response to section D of
the questionnaire, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 12, 2009, Aqualon filed comments on CP Kelco's
questionnaire responses, as well as a request for a sales-below-cost
investigation of ANFC, in which the petitioner alleged that ANFC had
made home-market sales of purified CMC at prices below the cost of
production (COP) during the POR. After reviewing the allegation, the
Department initiated a cost investigation of ANFC on January 8, 2010,
and requested that the company respond to section D of the
questionnaire. ANFC filed its section D response on February 19, 2010.
Aqualon submitted comments to this response on March 3, 2010, and, in
response to these comments and to clarify portions of ANFC's section D
response, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires, to which
ANFC responded on June 1, 2010, June 23, 2010, and July 15, 2010.
In the meanwhile, ANFC responded to supplemental questionnaires
concerning sections A-C on March 11, 2010, and April 29, 2010. Aqualon
provided additional comments on CP Kelco's section D response on March
18, 2010, and CP Kelco filed responses to supplemental questionnaires
concerning sections A-D on the following dates: February 17, 2010;
March 15, 2010; April 26, 2010; May 5, 2010; July 2, 2010; and July 21,
2010. On July 1, 2010, Aqualon provided comments on ANFC's June 23,
2010 response to the Section D supplemental questionnaire.
On March 22, 2010, the Department extended the deadline for the
preliminary results of review from April 2, 2010, until August 2, 2010.
See Certain Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from the Netherlands;
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 15678 (March 30, 2010).
As described in the ``Verification'' section below, we conducted
sales verifications of ANFC's questionnaire responses at the company's
production and sales facility in the Netherlands from May 17, 2010,
through May 21, 2010, and at its U.S. affiliate's CMC sales office from
June 22, 2010, through June 24, 2010. As a result of minor corrections
and findings at the verifications, ANFC submitted revised databases for
sections B and C on July 6, 2010 per the Department's request.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Memorandum to The File through Angelica L. Mendoza,
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, ``Submission of
Revised Sales Databases'' dated July 6, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 currently 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 this
order is dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.307, we
conducted a sales verification of the questionnaire responses provided
by ANFC from May 17, 2010, through May 21, 2010, in the Netherlands. We
further verified ANFC's U.S. affiliates' sales information from June
22, 2010, through June 24, 2010 at AN-US' sales office located in
Brewster, New York. We used standard verification procedures, including
on-site inspection of ANFC's production facility in the Netherlands.
Because there was insufficient time to complete the verification
memoranda for the preliminary results of review, these memoranda will
be forthcoming. However, ANFC submitted sales data on July 6, 2010,
based on revisions discussed at the verifications and we have used this
data in our margin calculations for ANFC. Interested parties will have
an opportunity to comment on the verification memoranda in their case
briefs (see ``Disclosure and Public Comment'' section below).
Successor-in-Interest
In this review, ANFC requests to be treated as the successor-in-
interest to Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry B.V. (ANSC), a company for
which the Department calculated an antidumping duty margin in the less-
than-fair-value investigation of the order on purified CMC from the
Netherlands. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from the Netherlands, 70 FR
28275 (May 17, 2005). We have not completed a review of sales of
subject merchandise of an Akzo Nobel group company since the
investigation.
As ANFC explained in its submissions, all CMC activities are
embedded in the sub-business unit Cellulosic Specialties (CS), which,
until November 1, 2005, was part of the business unit Akzo Nobel
Surface Chemistry--a business unit that was associated with ANSC within
the Netherlands.\3\ See ANFC's section A questionnaire response, date-
stamped October 13, 2009 (ANFC's section A response), at 7; ANFC's
supplemental questionnaire response, dated-stamped March 11, 2010, at
4-5. In November 2005, the CS sub-business unit was moved from the ANSC
business unit to the ANFC business unit. See ANFC's section A response
at 7. Thus, activities of the CS sub-business unit became
[[Page 48312]]
associated through its new business unit with the ANFC legal entity.
This portfolio realignment was part of a global restructuring of Akzo
Nobel N.V., the parent of ANFC and ANSC. See ANFC's supplemental
questionnaire response at 5. As an additional part of the
restructuring, the Netherlands branch of ANSC was legally merged into
ANFC in the Netherlands in December 2005. Id. at 4-5. ANFC provided a
copy of the merger documents in exhibit 7 of its March 11, 2010,
supplemental response. It also stated that the realignment of the CS
sub-business unit had not resulted in any changes to CMC production
facilities, sales services, or the customer base for CMC sales. See
ANFC's section A response at 7; ANFC's supplemental response at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Business units and sub-business units in the Akzo Nobel
group represent purely organizational structures that have no legal
status and exist across national boundaries. Hence, the CS sub-
business unit, which is part of the ANFC business unit, utilizes the
legal Dutch entity of Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals B.V. to
accomplish its activities within the Netherlands. Both the ANFC
business unit and CS sub-business unit have associations with other
ANFC legal entities throughout the world as necessitated by their
unit activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the Department is conducting a successor-in-interest analysis
to determine whether ANFC is the successor-in-interest to ANSC for
purposes of treatment under the antidumping law. In making such a
determination, the Department examines a number of factors including,
but not limited to, changes in: (1) Management, (2) production
facilities, (3) suppliers, and (4) customer base. See, e.g., Certain
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 39047, 39051
(August 5, 2009), unchanged in final, Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel
Flat Products from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 65518 (December 10, 2009). While examining
these factors alone will not necessarily provide a dispositive
indication of succession, the Department will generally consider one
company to have succeeded another if that company's operations are not
materially dissimilar to the predecessor's operations. See Stainless
Steel Bar from France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 17411 (April 6, 2005) (unchanged in final,
Stainless Steel Bar from France: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 46492 (August 10, 2005)). Thus, if the
evidence demonstrates, with respect to the production and sale of the
subject merchandise, that the new company is essentially the same
business operation as the former company, the Department will assign
the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor.
The record shows that the sub-business unit responsible for the
production and sales of CMC in the Netherlands remains unchanged as a
result of the corporate restructuring. It was moved from an
organizational standpoint, as it is now aligned under a different
business unit. However, the physical attributes and operations of the
CS sub-business unit remain the same--it continues to produce purified
CMC at its facility in Arnhem, the Netherlands, and to sell the subject
merchandise through its U.S. affiliate located in Brewster, New York.
See ANFC's section A response at 10. Furthermore, ANFC has stated that
there were no changes to CMC production facilities, its sales services,
or its customer base as a result of the re-alignment. It clarified that
there had been no changes to the production capacity or product lines
of CMC due to the re-alignment and that, administratively, the sub-
business unit performed the same services at the same facilities as
before the merger of ANSC with ANFC. See ANFC's March 11, 2010,
supplemental response at 5.
In light of these findings, we conclude that, from an operational
standpoint, there have been no changes to the CS sub-business unit as a
result of the corporate restructuring. Hence, we preliminarily find
that ANFC's operations are not materially dissimilar from ANSC's
operations and that, for purposes of this review and the antidumping
duty proceeding, we find that ANFC is the successor-in-interest to
ANSC.
Date of Sale
For its home-market sales, ANFC reported its date of sale to be the
invoice date, which coincided with the loading and shipment date of the
merchandise. It stated that, until the time that the merchandise is
loaded, changes can occur in the material terms of sale. See ANFC's
section B questionnaire response, date-stamped October 27, 2010 (ANFC's
section B response), at 11. Similarly, for its warehouse sales in the
United States, ANFC reported the date of sale to be the invoice date,
which is the date that merchandise is loaded for shipment from the
warehouse and, because material changes can take place prior to
loading, the invoice date is the date on which the terms of sale are
set. See ANFC's section C questionnaire response, date-stamped October
27, 2010 (ANFC's section C response), at 11. However, for sales in
which the product was shipped directly from the Netherlands to the
United States, ANFC reported the date of shipment as the date of sale
as this date preceded the invoice date. See ANFC's section C response
at 11-12. In its description of the sales process for these sales, ANFC
stated that material terms, such as the quantity or price of the
merchandise, could change prior to invoicing. See ANFC's section A
response, at 29. But the description further shows that the
unaffiliated customer is not invoiced by AN-US until the customer
receives the merchandise from the Netherlands.
CP Kelco reported the date of invoice as the date of sale for its
comparison-market and U.S. sales. It explained that, in most instances,
invoicing occurred on the ``post goods issue'' date, i.e., the date on
which the merchandise was removed from the finished-goods inventory,
its removal was posted in the SAP accounting system, and the goods were
prepared for shipment. See CP Kelco's section B questionnaire response,
dated October 26, 2009 (section B response), at 15-16; its section C
questionnaire response, dated October 26, 2009 (section C response), at
16-17. It reported the ``post goods issue'' date as the shipment date
for all sales and explained that, because invoicing should have been
triggered within SAP by this date, the invoice date should have been
the same as the shipment date except in instances of manual override of
the SAP system. Id. at 16. In a later response, CP Kelco acknowledged
that, for one sale, the date of shipment preceded the reported sale
date because the merchandise had been shipped prior to a holiday
weekend and the warehouse did not post the ``goods issue'' until after
the weekend. See CP Kelco's February 17, 2010, supplemental
questionnaire response, at 5-6.
Normally, the Department considers invoice date as the date of sale
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i). However, it is the Department's
practice to use shipment date as the date of sale when shipment date
precedes invoice date. See Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant
Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 13170, 13172-73 (March 18, 1998);
see also Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of
Korea; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review in Part, 72 FR 4486 (January 31, 2007), and the accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 4 and 5.
Although ANFC asserts that material terms of sale for its direct
sales may change between the time of shipment of the goods from the
Netherlands and the issuance of an invoice by AN-US, we find that the
quantity and price for these sales are established at the time the
merchandise was shipped from the Netherlands. See ANFC's section C
response, at 11. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the
shipment date is the appropriate date of
[[Page 48313]]
sale for these sales and that, for all other ANFC sales, the invoice
date is the appropriate date of sale.
For CP Kelco, we preliminarily determine that it is appropriate to
use invoice date as the date of sale except in instances where the
shipment date precedes the invoice date. In those instances, we will
use the shipment date as the date of sale, in keeping with our past
practice.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of purified CMC from the Netherlands to
the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the
export price or CEP of each sale to the normal value, as described in
the ``Export Price and Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value''
sections of this notice below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of
the Act, we compared the export prices and the CEPs of individual U.S.
transactions to monthly weighted-average normal values.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
purified CMC, that fit the description in the ``Scope of the Order''
section above and that was either produced and sold by ANFC in the
Netherlands during the POR or produced by CP Kelco in the Netherlands
and sold by that company in the comparison market of Taiwan during the
POR, to be foreign like product for the purpose of determining
appropriate product comparisons to purified CMC sold by respondents in
the United States. For our discussion of market viability and the
selection of comparison markets, see the ``Normal Value'' section of
this notice below. We compared the U.S. sales with the sales of the
foreign like products in the appropriate comparison markets.
Specifically, in making our comparisons, we used the following
methodology. If sales of an identical comparison-market model were
reported, we compared the export prices or CEPs of the U.S. sales to
the weighted-average, comparison-market prices of all sales that passed
the COP test of the identical product during the relevant or
contemporary month. See sections 771(16) and (35) of the Act; see also
773(b)(1) of the Act. If there were no contemporaneous sales of an
identical model, we identified sales of the most similar comparison-
market model. See section 771(16) of the Act. To determine the most
similar model, we matched the physical characteristics of the foreign
like products, as reported by the respondents, to the characteristics
of the subject merchandise in the following order of importance: (1)
Grade, (2) viscosity, (3) degree of substitution, (4) particle size,
and (5) solution characteristics. Where there were no sales of
identical or similar foreign like product in the ordinary course of
trade with which to compare to a U.S. sale, we made product comparisons
using constructed value.
CP Kelco reported that it sold material which was suitable for
pharmaceutical grade applications and for other regulated applications
as well (i.e., food, cosmetic, personal care). See CP Kelco's section B
response at 9-10; see also CP Kelco's section A Response at exhibit A-
31. In its responses to sections B, C, and D of our antidumping duty
questionnaire, CP Kelco reported these sales as sales of grade ``2''
material, ``regulated-other (food).'' However, CP Kelco clarified in a
supplemental questionnaire response that all of the purified CMC
products it produced met the standards of the U.S. Pharmacopeia and
that, therefore, any of the products that can be used in food, personal
care, or cosmetic applications can also be used in pharmaceutical
applications, and vice versa. See CP Kelco's Supplemental Questionnaire
Response, dated February 17, 2010, at 4-5. In other words, all of the
company's products are manufactured to meet grade ``1'' requirements.
It has been the Department's past practice to consider a product,
which meets multiple specifications, to be identified according to the
strictest requirements of subject merchandise. In this case, all of the
relevant commercial products were manufactured to be suitable both for
the strictest specifications, that of regulated pharmaceutical-grade
CMC, and for a less-strict specification, that of regulated-other
(food) grade CMC. In accordance with our past practice, we treated
these sales as sales of products which met the strictest specification
to which the material was manufactured: regulated pharmaceutical grade
material.\4\ See Memorandum to the File, through Angelica Mendoza,
Program Manager, Office 7, regarding ``CP Kelco B.V.--Analysis
Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the 2008/2009 Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from the
Netherlands'' (CP Kelco's Preliminary Analysis Memorandum), dated
August 2, 2010, at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See, e.g., Rautaruukki Oy v. United States, 23 C.I.T. 257
(CT. Int'l Trade 1998), in which the court found that the Department
should have considered all steel plate products graded as ``A''
under different national classification standards to be identical
merchandise in the absence of a showing of any significant physical
distinction between the products. See also, Certain Cut-to-Length
Carbon Steel Plate From Finland; Notice of Amended Final Results of
Administrative Review in Accordance With Final Court Decision, 64 FR
68669 (December 8, 1999). Further, it is the Department's practice
to consider the strictest requirements of subject merchandise which
has multiple specifications (i.e., the strictest specifications).
See, e.g., Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless
Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From Romania: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination Not
To Revoke Order in Part, 70 FR 7237 (February 11, 2005) and the
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 13, where the
Department states: ``To establish the most appropriate match for the
triple-certified pipe in the comparison market, we looked for
products that met most closely the strictest requirements of the
subject merchandise with multiple specifications.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
In accordance with section 772 of the Act, we calculate either an
export price or a CEP, depending on the nature of each sale. Section
772(a) of the Act defines export price as the price at which the
subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the
date of importation by the foreign producer or exporter to an
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated
purchaser for exportation to the United States. Section 772(b) of the
Act defines CEP as 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.
ANFC classified all of its sales to the United States as sales made
through its U.S. affiliate, AN-US, to end-users and distributors (i.e.,
CEP sales). CP Kelco classified its sales to the United States as: (1)
Direct sales to end-users and distributors (i.e., export-price sales);
and (2) sales via its U.S. affiliate, CP Kelco US, to end-users and
distributors (i.e., CEP sales). For purposes of these preliminary
results, we have accepted these classifications.
We calculated export price based on prices charged to the first
unaffiliated U.S. customer. As described in the ``Date of Sale''
section above, we used invoice date as the date of sale for export-
price sales except where CP Kelco reported a date of shipment that
preceded the invoice date. We based export price on the packed,
delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States,
making adjustments where necessary for billing adjustments. See 19 CFR
351.401(c). We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance
[[Page 48314]]
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, which included deductions for
foreign inland freight, international freight, marine insurance,
brokerage and handling expenses incurred in the United States, U.S.
inland freight (offset by reported freight revenue), and U.S. customs
duties.
In accordance with our practice, we capped the amount of freight
revenue permitted to offset gross unit price at no greater than the
amount of corresponding inland freight expenses incurred by CP Kelco
and its U.S. affiliate. See Certain Orange Juice From Brazil: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 40167 (Aug.
11, 2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment
3; Certain Orange Juice From Brazil: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 46584 (Aug.
11, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment
7; Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
6857 (February 11, 2009), and the accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6.
We did not adjust export price for certain ``factoring'' expenses
that CP Kelco reported to have incurred on U.S. sales. Although we have
accepted this adjustment in prior reviews, we found it inappropriate to
include this adjustment in this review because CP Kelco could not
provide us with sufficient evidence that its factoring activity, which
involves affiliated parties, was of an arm's-length nature.\5\ For a
detailed discussion of this matter, see CP Kelco's Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from the Netherlands;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
24823 (May 26, 2009) at 24827, where we stated our intent to re-
examine the appropriateness of including the factoring expenses,
arising from affiliated transactions, in our margin calculations in
subsequent reviews of this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We calculated CEP based on prices charged to the first unaffiliated
U.S. customer after importation. As discussed in the ``Date of Sale''
section above, we used invoice date as the date of sale for CEP sales,
except in instances where the date of shipment preceded the invoice
date. We based CEP on the gross unit price to the first unaffiliated
U.S. customer, making adjustments where necessary for billing
adjustments and rebates. See 19 CFR 351.401(c). Where applicable, and
pursuant to sections 772(c)(2)(A) and (d)(1) of the Act, the Department
made deductions for movement expenses, including deductions for
domestic foreign inland freight and warehousing expenses, domestic
insurance, domestic brokerage and handling expenses, international
freight, marine insurance, U.S. insurance, brokerage and handling
expenses incurred in the United States, U.S. warehousing expenses, U.S.
inland freight (offset by reported freight revenue), and U.S. customs
duties.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted,
where applicable, U.S. direct selling expenses (including credit
expenses) and indirect selling expenses and inventory carrying costs
incurred in the Netherlands and the United States and associated with
economic activities in the United States. As noted for the calculation
of export price above, we did not made an adjustment to CEP for
factoring expenses that CP Kelco reported to have incurred on U.S.
sales, since we could not establish the arm's-length nature of the
affiliated factoring transactions.
We deducted an amount for CEP profit in accordance with section
772(d)(3) of the Act.
Normal Value
A. Home Market Viability and Comparison Market Selection
In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating normal
value (i.e., whether the aggregate volume of home-market sales of the
foreign like product is equal to or greater than five percent of the
aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared 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)(1)(C) of the Act.
Section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act provides that the Department
may determine that home-market sales are inappropriate as a basis for
determining normal value if the Department determines that the
aggregate quantity of the foreign like product sold in the exporting
country is insufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of
the subject merchandise to the United States. When sales in the home
market are not viable, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act provides
that sales to a particular third-country market may be utilized if: (1)
The prices in such market are representative; (2) the aggregate
quantity of the foreign like product sold by the producer or exporter
in that third-country market is five percent or more of the aggregate
quantity of the subject merchandise sold in or to the United States;
and (3) the Department does not determine that a particular market
situation in the third-country market prevents a proper comparison with
the U.S. price.
A review of the record shows that ANFC's home-market sales were
viable, for purposes of comparing them to U.S. sales. See ANFC's
Section A response at 4. Thus, we based normal value on this company's
home-market sales made in the usual commercial quantities and in the
ordinary course of trade.
CP Kelco reported, and we have preliminary determined, that its
aggregate volume of home-market sales of the foreign like product was
not greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of
subject merchandise and, thus, its home-market sales did not provide a
viable basis for calculating normal value. See CP Kelco's section A
response at A2-A3. Accordingly, CP Kelco reported the POR sales of
foreign like product to its three largest third-country markets--
Taiwan, Germany, and South Africa. Id. In reviewing this information of
these three markets, the Department found that exports of the foreign
like product to Taiwan were similar to those exported to the United
States, that the aggregate quantity of the exports of the foreign like
product to Taiwan was five percent or more of the subject merchandise
sold in the United States, and that there was no evidence of a
particular market situation in Taiwan that prevented a proper
comparison between sales prices in that market and the U.S. price. For
a detailed discussion of these findings, see CP Kelco's Preliminary
Analysis Memorandum at 7-8. Therefore, based on our findings and
pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we selected Taiwan as
the appropriate third-country market on which to base our calculation
of normal value for CP Kelco in these preliminary results.
We also used constructed value as the basis for calculating normal
value, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, for U.S. sales
by CP Kelco that did not have identical or similar product matches
where appropriate.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
Based on Aqualon's cost allegation, the Department had reasonable
grounds to believe or suspect that ANFC had made below-cost sales of
foreign like product. See Section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act.
Therefore, the Department initiated a cost investigation of ANFC on
January 8, 2010, and requested that ANFC file a response to section D
of the antidumping duty questionnaire on that date. Also, pursuant to
section
[[Page 48315]]
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, we had reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that CP Kelco sold the foreign like product below the COP in
this review because, in the most recently completed review of the
company, we had disregarded sales found to be made below the cost of
production. See Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From the Netherlands;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR at
24823 (May 26, 2009) (unchanged in final, Purified
Carboxymethylcellulose from the Netherlands: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 52742 (Oct. 14, 2009)).
Thus, the Department also requested that CP Kelco respond to section D
of the questionnaire.
C. Calculation of Cost of Production
We have preliminarily relied upon the COP information provided by
ANFC and CP Kelco in their section D submissions, except as noted
below. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated
the weighted-average COP for each foreign like product based on the sum
of the respondents' material and fabrication costs for the product,
plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses,
as well as packing costs. For ANFC, we relied on the COP data provided
in its June 22, 2010, submission, except for the following instances:
a. We subtracted the reported research and development (R&D)
expenses from fixed overhead and we reclassified them as general and
administrative (G&A).
b. We added amortization of intangible assets, certain non-
operating expenses, and certain R&D expenses net of the technical
service component reported as an indirect selling expense to the
general and administrative (G&A) expense calculation in accordance with
the Department's practice of including non-operating accounts which
relate to the general operations of the company as a whole. See
Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Notice of Final
Determination at Less than Fair Value, 70 FR 9041 (February 24, 2005),
and accompanying I&D Memo at Comment 10.
c. We subtracted net exchange losses from ANFC's reported G&A
expense calculation. Exchange gains and losses (G&L) are included by
the Department as part of financial expense, which is calculated at the
parent level.
For further discussion of these adjustments, see the memorandum
from Frederick W. Mines, Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director,
Office of Accounting, regarding ``Cost of Production and Constructed
Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--Akzo Nobel
Functional Chemicals B.V.,'' dated August 2, 2010.
For CP Kelco, we relied on the COP data provided in its July 27, 2010
submission, except for two changes. First, we made a downward
adjustment to the cost of manufacturing to reflect an adjustment made
by the auditor to CP Kelco's books for the 2008 fiscal year. The
auditor found that certain incentive plan wages had been overstated
and, because these wages were paid to CMC plant personnel, we found
that they directly related to the cost of manufacturing and we thus
applied an adjustment, reflecting overstated costs for the POR, to this
cost. For a discussion and calculation of this adjustment, see CP
Kelco's Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 15-16. Second, we included
certain factoring expenses in CP Kelco's financial expense calculation,
since we did not adjust the third-country market or U.S. sales prices
for these expenses. For a more detailed discussion of this matter, see
CP Kelco's Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 6-7.
D. Test of Comparison Market Prices
As required under section 773(b) of the Act, we compared the
respondents' weighted-average COP figures to their comparison-market
sales prices (net of billing adjustments, any applicable movement
expenses, direct and indirect selling expenses, and packing) of the
foreign like product in order to determine whether sales in the
comparison market had been made at prices below COP. In determining
whether to disregard such sales, we examined, in accordance with
sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such sales were made
within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and whether
the sales were made at prices which would not permit the recovery of
all costs within a reasonable period of time.
E. Results of Cost Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of the sales of a given product were at prices less than the
COP, we did not disregard any of the below-cost sales of that product
because they were not made in substantial quantities. However, where 20
percent or more of the respondents' comparison-market sales of a model
were made at prices below the COP, we disregarded these sales because
they were made: (1) In substantial quantities within the POR (i.e.,
within an extended period of time), in accordance with sections
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; and (2) at prices which would not
permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We used the remaining
comparison-market sales, if such sales existed and were made in the
ordinary course of trade, as the basis for determining normal value, in
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
In the current review, we found sales by ANFC made below the COP
for 20 percent or more of certain models and, therefore, we disregarded
these below-cost sales from our margin calculations. See ANFC's
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 8.
F. Price-to-Price Comparisons
We calculated normal value based on prices to unaffiliated
customers in the comparison markets. In these markets, we used invoice
date as the date of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). We increased or
decreased price, as appropriate, for certain billing adjustments and
rebates. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland
freight and international freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of
the Act. We did not deduct certain factoring expenses from normal value
that CP Kelco reported to have incurred on third-country sales, as we
found did not find sufficient evidence of the arm's-length nature of
the affiliated factoring transactions. See CP Kelco's Preliminary
Analysis Memorandum at 6-7. In addition, when comparing sales of
similar merchandise to U.S. sales, we made adjustments in normal value
for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical
characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411, as well as for
differences in circumstances of sale, as appropriate (i.e., commissions
and credit), in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.410. We also made an adjustment, where appropriate, for
a CEP offset, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See
the ``Level of Trade'' section below. Finally, we deducted comparison-
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs to normal value, in
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
G. Price-to-Constructed-Value Comparisons
Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that, if we are unable to
find a contemporaneous comparison-market match of identical or similar
merchandise for a U.S. sale, then we base normal value on constructed
value. Section 773(e) of the Act provides that
[[Page 48316]]
constructed value shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials
and fabrication employed in producing the merchandise, SG&A expenses,
and profit. We calculated the cost of materials and fabrication based
on the methodology described above in the ``Calculation of Cost of
Production'' section. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the
Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and
realized by CP Kelco in connection with the production and sale of the
foreign like product, in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption
in the foreign country (i.e., Taiwan). See 19 CFR 351.405(b)(1).
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the
extent practicable, we determine normal value based on sales in the
comparison market at the same level of trade as the export price or CEP
transaction. The level of trade in the comparison market is the level
of trade of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when
normal value is based on constructed value, the level of trade of the
sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. See 19 CFR
351.412(c). With respect to U.S. price for export-price transactions,
the level of trade is also that of the starting-price sale, which is
usually from the exporter to the importer. Id. For CEP, the level of
trade is that of the constructed sale from the exporter to the
importer. Id.
To determine whether comparison market sales are at a different
level of trade from U.S. sales, we examine stages in the marketing
process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between
the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market
sales are at different levels of trade, and the difference affects
price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price
differences between the sales on which normal value is based and
comparison market sales at the level of trade of the export
transaction, the Department makes a level-of-trade adjustment in
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, we
examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the
chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. We analyze
whether different selling activities are performed, and whether any
price differences (other than those for which other allowances are made
under the Act) are shown to be wholly or partly due to a difference in
level of trade between the CEP and normal value. See 773(a)(7)(A) of
the Act.
Under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, we make an upward or
downward adjustment to normal value for level of trade if the
difference in level of trade involves the performance of different
selling activities and is demonstrated to affect price comparability,
based on a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at
different levels of trade in the country in which normal value is
determined. Finally, if the normal-value level of trade is at a more
advanced stage of distribution than the level of trade of the CEP, but
the data available do not provide an appropriate basis to determine a
level-of-trade adjustment, we reduce normal value by the amount of
indirect selling expenses incurred in the comparison market on sales of
the foreign like product, but by no more than the amount of the
indirect selling expenses incurred for CEP sales. See section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision).
In analyzing differences in selling functions, we determine whether
the levels of trade identified by the respondent are meaningful. See
Antidumping Duties: Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27371 (May 19,
1997). If the claimed levels of trade are the same, we expect that the
functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely,
if a party claims that levels of trade 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 Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.
In the present review, both ANFC and CP Kelco claimed that a CEP
offset was required because the CEP level of trade was less advanced
than levels of trade in the comparison markets. See ANFC's section C
questionnaire response at 52 and CP Kelco's section A questionnaire
response at 33-34. In order to determine whether the comparison market
sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S.
sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e., the
``chain of distribution''),\6\ including selling functions, class of
customer (customer category), and the level of selling functions for
each type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The marketing process in the United States and comparison
markets begins with the producers and extends to the sale to the
final user or customer. The chain of distribution involved in the
two markets may have many or few links, and the respondents' sales
occur somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we
considered the respondents' narrative responses to properly
determine where in the chain of distribution the sale occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANFC reported one level of trade in the home market, the
Netherlands, with one channel of distribution to two classes of
customers: (1) Direct sales from the warehouse located near the ANFC
manufacturing plant to end users, and (2) direct sales from the
warehouse located near the ANFC manufacturing plant to distributors.
See ANFC's section B questionnaire response at 10.
ANFC reported one level of trade in the home market, the
Netherlands, with one channel of distribution to two classes of
customers: (1) Direct sales from the warehouse located near the ANFC
manufacturing plant to end users, and (2) direct sales from the
warehouse located near the ANFC manufacturing plant to distributors.
See ANFC's section B questionnaire response at 10.
Based on our review of evidence on the record, we find that the
home-market sales to both customer categories through the one channel
of distribution were substantially similar with respect to selling
functions and stages of marketing. ANFC performed the same selling
functions for sales in a single home-market channel of distribution,
including sales forecasting, strategic planning, advertising,
distributor training, packing, warehousing, inventory management, order
processing, direct sales crew, market research, providing guarantees,
after sales services, freight and delivery, and invoicing. See ANFC's
section A questionnaire response at 17-25. Each of these selling
functions was identical in the intensity of their provision or only
differed minimally, the exception being that ANFC provided competitive
discounts and technical assistance to a different degree of involvement
to different customers' types. See ANFC's section A questionnaire
response at exhibit 8. See also Preliminary Analysis Memorandum--ANFC
at 4. Thus, after considering all of the above, we preliminarily find
that ANFC had only one LOT for its home market sales.
ANFC reported one CEP LOT, with two separate channels of
distribution in the United States. CEP Channel 1 sales were made to two
classes of customers, i.e., end users and distributors, either from
inventory or made to order and CEP Channel 2 sales were also made to
two classes of customers, i.e., end users and distributors from
inventory. For CEP Channel 1 sales, the U.S. customer orders
merchandise from AN-US and the merchandise is shipped directly to the
U.S. customer from ANFC's warehouse. These sales are classified as CEP
Channel 1 sales because the agreement to sell occurred in the United
[[Page 48317]]
States, the sale contract was executed in the United States, and the
title passed directly from the AN-US to the unaffiliated customer in
the United States. For the CEP Channel 2 sales, the U.S. customer
orders merchandise from AN-US, which is shipped out of stock of
materials maintained at AN-US's unaffiliated warehouses. Upon examining
ANFC's questionnaire responses, we preliminarily find that it has two
channels of distribution for its CEP sales in the United States. See
ANFC's supplemental questionnaire response, dated March 11, 2010 at 22
through 26. See also ANFC's section C questionnaire response at 10
through 11.
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) of the Act. See Micron Tech. Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d
1301, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We reviewed the selling functions and
services performed by ANFC on CEP sales as described in its
questionnaire responses, after these deductions. We found that selling
functions performed by ANFC to its U.S. affiliate in support of the CEP
sales were almost identical regardless of class of customers or channel
of trade. ANFC reported that the only services it provided for the CEP
Channel 1 sales, to a different degree of performance comparatively to
a degree of performance provided for Channel 2 sales, were logistics
for freight and delivery, warehousing, and inventory management. See
ANFC's section A questionnaire response at exhibit 8. Therefore, we
found that selling functions performed by ANFC for both channels are at
the same level.
Next, we compared the stages in the marketing process and selling
functions along the chain of distribution for home-market and CEP
sales. ANFC's home-market and CEP sales were both made to end users and
distributors. We found that ANFC performs an additional layer of
selling functions at a greater degree of involvement in the home market
than it provided on CEP Channel 1 and Channel 2 sales (e.g., sales
forecasting, advertising, distributor training, market research, sales
and marketing support and competitive discounts). See ANFC supplemental
questionnaire response at 10 through 16. Because these additional
selling functions are significant, we find that ANFC's CEP sales are at
a different level of trade than its home-market sales.
According to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, a CEP offset is
appropriate when the level of trade in the home market is at a more
advanced stage than the level of trade of the CEP sales and there is no
basis for determining whether the difference in levels of trade between
normal value and CEP affects price comparability. ANFC reported that it
provided minimal selling functions and services for the CEP level of
trade and that, therefore, the home-market level of trade is more
advanced than the CEP level of trade. Based on our analysis of the
channels of distribution and selling functions performed by ANFC for
sales in the home market and CEP sales in the U.S. market (i.e., sales
support and activities provided by ANFC for sales to its U.S.
affiliate), we preliminarily find that the home market level of trade
is at a more advanced stage when compared to CEP sales because ANFC
provides many selling functions in the home market at a different level
of service (i.e., sales forecasting, advertising, distributor training,
market research, sales and marketing support and competitive discounts,
etc.) as compared to selling functions performed for its CEP sales
(i.e., ANFC reported that the only services it provided for the CEP
sales were logistics for freight and delivery, packing, warehousing,
limited strategic planning, inventory maintenance and technical
assistance). See ANFC's supplemental questionnaire response, dated
March 11, 2010 at 10-18 and its second supplemental questionnaire
response, dated April 29, 2010 at 3. Thus, we find that ANFC's home-
market sales are at a more advanced level of trade than its CEP sales.
As there was only one level of trade in the home market, there were no
data available to determine the existence of a pattern of price
differences, and we do not have any other information that provides an
appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment;
therefore, we applied a CEP offset to normal value for CEP comparisons.
CP Kelco reported sales through two channels of distribution in the
third-country market, identified as: (1) Channel 1--sales to an
unaffiliated end user; and (2) Channel 2--sales to an unaffiliated
distributor. A review of the record shows that CP Kelco continues to
perform substantially similar selling functions and activities for the
two channels of distribution and customer categories. Specifically, it
performed activities relating to customer service, logistics, inventory
maintenance, packing, freight/delivery, sales promotion, and guarantees
to the same degree for each channel. See CP Kelco's section A response
at A18-A30; CP Kelco's supplemental questionnaire response, dated April
23, 2010, at exhibit A-51. The company also provided, to slightly
differing degrees, sales negotiations, credit risk management, direct
sales personnel and technical support functions in both channels. Id.
Consequently, we conclude that, as in prior reviews, CP Kelco only made
sales at one level of trade in the Taiwanese market.
In the U.S. market, CP Kelco reported two channels of distribution,
identified as: (1) Channel 1--CEP sales to unaffiliated end users and
distributors; and (2) Channel 2--EP sales to unaffiliated end users and
distributors. Turning to a review of the selling functions the company
performed for U.S. sales, we considered only those reflected in the
price after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section
772(d) of the Act. For its CEP sales, we found that CP Kelco performed
functions related to logistics, inventory maintenance, packing, and
freight/delivery to a high degree. See supplemental questionnaire
response, dated April 26, 2010, at exhibit A-51. For its EP sales, we
found that it performed logistics, packing and freight/delivery
functions to a high degree but also assisted the U.S. affiliate with
customer service, inventory maintenance, sales promotion, direct sales
personnel and guarantees activities to lesser degrees. Id. Because of
the significant differences in selling functions performed for the two
types of sales, we concluded that CP Kelco's EP sales were made at a
different level of trade than its CEP sales.
We next examined the third-country sales compared to the EP sales.
CP Kelco's Taiwanese sales and EP sales were both made to end users and
distributors and the selling functions performed by CP Kelco for these
two groups of sales were almost identical. It performed functions
relating to sales negotiations, credit-risk management, inventory
maintenance, packing, freight/delivery, collection, sales promotion,
direct sales personnel, technical support, and guarantees to nearly the
same degrees in both markets. Id. Because the selling functions and
channels of distribution were substantially similar, we preliminarily
determined that the Taiwanese sales were made at the same level of
trade as the EP sales in the U.S. market. Therefore, it was not
necessary to make a level-of-trade adjustment for the EP sales.
According to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, a CEP offset is
appropriate when the level of trade in the home- or third-country
market is at a more advanced stage than the level of trade of the CEP
sales and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in
these levels effects price comparability.
[[Page 48318]]
CP Kelco reported that it provided few selling functions and activities
for the CEP level of trade; consequently, the Taiwanese level of trade
is more advanced than the CEP level of trade. Furthermore, because
there was only one level of trade in the third-country market and no
data were available to determine the existence of a pattern of price
differences within that market, and because we do not have any other
information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a level-
of-trade adjustment, we applied a CEP offset to normal value for CEP
comparisons pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
To calculate a CEP offset for ANFC and CP Kelco, we deducted the
comparison-market indirect selling expenses from normal value for sales
that were compared to U.S. CEP sales. We limited the deduction by the
amount of the indirect selling expenses deducted in calculating the CEP
under section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. See section 773(a)(7)(B) of the
Act.
Currency Conversion
We made foreign-currency conversions into U.S. dollars in
accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415 based on
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified
by the Federal Reserve Bank. See Import Administration Web site at:
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that, for the period July 1, 2008,
through June 30, 2009, the following dumping margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Manufacturer/ exporter margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals B.V........................ 13.71
CP Kelco B.V............................................... 2.77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure and Public Comment
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations, the
Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations
performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days
after the date of publication of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit written comments in
response to these preliminary results. As stated in the
``Verification'' section above, the Department will release the sales
verification memoranda to parties for comment after the publication of
these preliminary results in the Federal Register. Therefore,
interested parties may submit case briefs to the Department no later
than 30 days after the publication of the preliminary results of review
or, if later, seven days after the date of the issuance of the last
verification report in this proceeding. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to the issues raised
in the case briefs, must be filed within five days from the deadline
date for the submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1) and
(2).
Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to
submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issues; (2) a brief
summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(2). Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested
parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Executive summaries
should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.
Furthermore, we request that parties, when submitting briefs and
rebuttal briefs, provide the Department with a copy of the public
versions of the briefs on diskette.
Within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice,
interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments raised in
the case and rebuttal briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c). Unless the
Department specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held
two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR
351.310(d)(1). Parties will be notified of the time and location of the
hearing.
The Department will publish the final results of the administrative
review, including the results of its analysis of issues addressed in
any case or rebuttal brief, no later than 120 days after publication of
the preliminary results, unless extended. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of
the Act; 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, whenever possible, an exporter/
importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate or value for
merchandise subject to this review as described below.
With respect to export-price sales, for these preliminary results,
we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference
between normal value and export price) for each exporter's importer or
customer by the total number of units the exporter sold to that
importer or customer. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-
unit dollar amount against each unit of merchandise in each of that
importer's/customer's POR entries.
For CEP sales, we divided the total dumping margins for the
reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for
each importer. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting percentage
margin against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise
on each of that importer's POR entries. See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced by companies in these preliminary
results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their
merchandise was 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(ies) involved in
the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after
publication of the final results of this review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the 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 of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies
covered by this review will be the rate established in the final
results of review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated
companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in the
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 (4) the cash-deposit rate for all other
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the all-others rate of
14.57 percent, which is the all-others rate established in the
investigation. See CMC Order, 70 FR at 39735. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
[[Page 48319]]
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 Department'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 Act.
Dated: August 2, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-19730 Filed 8-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P