Notices. Notice of Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiries of Antidumping Duty Order: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China

45,767 words·~208 min read·/register/2005/03/07/05-4379

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 8230-01-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1377] Termination of Foreign-Trade Subzone 49A Edison, NJ Pursuant to the authority granted in the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the Foreign-Trade Zones Board Regulations (15 CFR part 400), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board has adopted the following order: *Whereas,* on February 6, 1984, the Foreign-Trade Zones Board issued a grant of authority to the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey (the Port), authorizing the establishment of Foreign-Trade Subzone 49A at the Ford Motor Company plant in Edison, New Jersey (Board Order 243, 49 FR 5981, 2/16/84); *Whereas,* the Port advised the Board on July 28, 2004 (FTZ Docket 50-2004), that zone procedures were no longer needed at the facility and requested voluntary termination of Subzone 49A; *Whereas,* the request has been reviewed by the FTZ Staff and Customs officials, and approval has been recommended; *Now, therefore,* the Foreign-Trade Zones Board terminates the subzone status of Subzone 49A, effective this date.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of February, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Dennis Puccinelli, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-929 Filed 3-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Docket 10-2005] Proposed Foreign-Trade Zone—Conroe (Montgomery County), TX; Application for Subzone, WLS Drilling Products, Inc.

(Mining Drill Bits); Montgomery, TX An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the City of Conroe, Texas, which has an application pending before the Board for FTZ status, requesting special-purpose subzone status for the warehousing facility (mining drill bits) of WLS Drilling Products, Inc., (WLS Drilling) in Montgomery, Texas. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400).

It was formally filed on February 25, 2005. The WLS Drilling facility is located at 18904 Freeport Drive in Montgomery, Texas. The facility (8 employees; 7,000 sq. ft. warehouse with adjacent 2,500 sq. ft. office on 5.2 acres) warehouses and distributes finished rotary rock drill bits used in the mining, construction, and oil and gas industries. WLS Drilling's imported drill bits currently enter the U.S. duty free. However, the application states that the imported products may become subject to duties in the future.

WLS Drilling also indicates that, although no manufacturing authority is currently requested, there is the potential for manufacturing at the site in the future. Finally, the application states that the company will benefit from an FTZ-related exemption from local property tax. In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board. Public comment is invited from interested parties.

Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at one of the following addresses: 1. Submissions Via Express/Package Delivery Services: Foreign-Trade-Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Franklin Court Building—Suite 4100W, 1099 14th St. NW., Washington, DC 20005; or 2. Submissions via the U.S. Postal Service: Foreign-Trade-Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, FCB—Suite 4100W, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230.

The closing period for their receipt is May 6, 2005. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to May 23, 2005. A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at address Number 1 listed above and at the Houston U.S. Export Assistance Center, 15600 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 530, Houston, TX 77032.

Dated: February 25, 2005. Dennis Puccinelli, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-928 Filed 3-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1371] Grant of Authority for Subzone Status, Letourneau, Inc. (Loading Equipment, Components of Offshore Drilling Rigs, Log Handling Equipment, Cranes, Drive Systems, and Parts or Components Thereof); Longview, TX Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: *Whereas* , the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for “ * * * the establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S.

Customs ports of entry; *Whereas* , the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest; *Whereas* , Gregg County, Texas, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 234, has made application to the Board for authority to establish special-purpose subzone status at the manufacturing facilities (loading equipment, components of offshore drilling rigs, log handling equipment, cranes, drive systems, and parts or components thereof) of LeTourneau, Inc., located in Longview, Texas (FTZ Docket 1-2004, filed 1/15/2004); *Whereas* , notice inviting public comment has been given in the **Federal Register** (69 FR 4291, 1/29/2004); and, *Whereas* , the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application would be in the public interest; *Now, therefore* , the Board hereby grants authority for subzone status at the manufacturing facilities of LeTourneau, Inc., located in Longview, Texas (Subzone 234B) at the locations described in the application, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including § 400.28.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of February 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Dennis Puccinelli, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-930 Filed 3-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-813] Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY:

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Crittenden or Magd Zalok, at

(202)482-0989 or

(202)482-4162, respectively; Import Administration, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Background On August 24, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit from Thailand. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part,* 69 FR 52857 (August 30, 2004). The period of review is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Review Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department shall make a preliminary determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend that 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period. The preliminary results of this antidumping duty administrative review of canned pineapple fruit from Thailand are currently scheduled to be completed on April 2, 2005. However, the Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results in this administrative review within this time limit because additional time is needed to fully address issues relating to the home market viability, as well as to conduct mandatory verifications of the questionnaire responses and supplemental questionnaire responses. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results of this review until August 1, 2005, which is the next business day after 365 days from the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The deadline for the final results of this administrative review continues to be 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Dated: February 28, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-922 Filed 3-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-809] Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke the Order In Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel flanges (stainless steel flanges) from India manufactured by Echjay Forgings Ltd. (Echjay) and Viraj Forgings Ltd. (Viraj). The period of review

(POR)covers February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004. We preliminarily determine that neither Echjay nor Viraj sold subject merchandise at less than normal value

(NV)in the United States during the POR. We have also preliminarily determined to revoke the order with respect to subject merchandise produced and exported by Viraj. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument

(1)a statement of the issues and

(2)a brief summary of the argument. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker, Mike Heaney or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone :

(202)482-2924,

(202)482-4475, or

(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 9, 1994, the Department published the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India. *See Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India* , 59 FR 5994, (February 9, 1994). On February 3, 2004, the Department published the “Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” for this order covering the period February 1, 2003 through January 31, 2004 (69 FR 5125). *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 69 FR 5125, (February 3, 2004). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213 (b)(1), Echjay and Viraj requested that we conduct this administrative review. On March 26, 2004, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the 2003-2004 POR. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation In Part* , 69 FR 15788 (March 26, 2004). On October 29, 2004, we extended the time limit for the preliminary results of this administrative review to February 28, 2005. *See Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 65 FR 65835 (October 29, 2004). Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order The products covered by this order are certain forged stainless steel flanges, both finished and not finished, generally manufactured to specification ASTM A-182, and made in alloys such as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope includes five general types of flanges. They are weld-neck, used for butt-weld line connection; threaded, used for threaded line connections; slip-on and lap joint, used with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; socket weld, used to fit pipe into a machined recession; and blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes of the flanges within the scope range generally from one to six inches; however, all sizes of the above-described merchandise are included in the scope. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are manufactured to specification ASTM A-351. The flanges subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive of whether or not the merchandise is covered by the scope of the order. Verification As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), we verified information provided by Viraj from January 17, 2005, through January 21, 2005, using standard verification procedures, the examination of relevant sales, cost, and financial records, and selection of original documentation containing relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in the public versions of the verification reports, on file in the Department's Central Records Unit

(CRU)located in room B-099 in the main Department of Commerce building. Intent to Revoke, In Part On February 27, 2004, Viraj requested revocation of the order covering stainless steel flanges from India as it pertains to its sales. According to section 751(d)(1) of the Tariff Act, the Department “may revoke, in whole or in part” an antidumping duty order upon completion of a review. Although Congress has not specified the procedures the Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation set forth at 19 CFR 351.222. Pursuant to subsection 351.222(b), the Department may revoke an antidumping duty order, in part, if it concludes:

(i)An exporter or producer has sold the merchandise at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years,

(ii)the exporter or producer has agreed in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order if the Secretary concludes the exporter or producer, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than NV, and

(iii)the continued application of the antidumping duty order is no longer necessary to offset dumping. A request for revocation must address these three elements. The company requesting the revocation must do so in writing and submit the following statements with the request:

(1)The company's certification that it sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV during the current review period and that, in the future, it will not sell at less than NV;

(2)the company's certification that during each of the consecutive years forming the basis of the request, it sold the subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities; and

(3)the agreement to reinstatement in the order if the Department concludes the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than NV. *See* 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). We preliminarily find that the request from Viraj meets all the criteria of 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). With regard to the criteria of subsection 351.222(b)(2), our preliminary margin calculations indicate that Viraj did not sell stainless steel flanges in the United States at less than NV during the instant POR. *See* “Preliminary Results of Review,” below. In addition, Viraj has not sold stainless steel flanges at less than NV in the three previous administrative reviews. * See Certain Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review * , 67 FR 62439 (October 7, 2002); *Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 42005 (July 16, 2003), and *Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 10409 (March 4, 2004). Based on our examination of the sales data submitted by Viraj, we preliminarily determine Viraj sold the subject merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities in each of the consecutive years cited by Viraj to support its request for revocation. *See* “Analysis Memorandum for Viraj Forgings, Ltd. for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Flanges from India,” dated February 28, 2005, which is in the Department's CRU, room B-099. Thus, we preliminarily find Viraj had zero or *de minimis* margins in each of the last four consecutive administrative reviews, one more than required by our regulations, and sold in commercial quantities in all four years. Also, we preliminarily determine the application of the antidumping duty order to Viraj is no longer warranted for the following reasons:

(i)the company had zero or *de minimis* margins for a period of at least three years;

(ii)the company has agreed to its immediate reinstatement in the order if the Department finds it has resumed making sales at less than NV and

(iii)the continued application of the order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Viraj qualifies for revocation of the order on certain forged stainless steel flanges from India pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), and that the order with respect to Viraj Forgings, Ltd. should be revoked. If these preliminary findings are followed in our final results of review, we will revoke the order in part with respect to certain forged stainless steel flanges from India produced and exported by Viraj Forgings, Ltd. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we will terminate the suspension of liquidation for certain forged stainless steel flanges from India produced and exported by Viraj Forgings, Ltd. that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after February 1, 2004, and will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) to refund any cash deposits for such entries. Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United States by Echjay and Viraj were made at less than NV, we compared the export price or constructed export price, as appropriate, to the NV, 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 Tariff Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to the prices of individual export price

(EP)or constructed export price

(CEP)transactions. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered all products described by the Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order section, above, which were produced and sold by Echjay and Viraj in the home market, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate comparisons to U.S. sales. 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 the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the Department's questionnaire. Where there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise in the home market suitable for comparing to U.S. sales, we compared these sales to constructed value (CV), pursuant to section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act. During the course of this review both respondents requested that the Department modify the model match characteristics used in comparing U.S. and home market sales. Echjay asked that a new characteristic be added to capture the flanges' thickness, while Viraj proposed a new variable be added to differentiate between custom-ordered and standard flanges. However, the Department believes the existing model match methodology captures those physical characteristics which impact directly on the cost and price of these products. Viraj's custom-made products vary only minutely from its standard products, while Echjay's request for a separate thickness category is unnecessary because the differing wall thicknesses are necessarily captured by basing our comparisons on weight. Accordingly, we have not altered our model match criteria for this review. Export Price and Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act, EP is defined 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 the 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. 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 subsections

(c)and (d). For sales of both respondents in the United States, we used EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act in those instances where the merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. For both Echjay and Viraj, we also used CEP in accordance with section 772(b) for those sales made through their respective U.S. affiliates, Echjay USA, Inc. and Viraj USA, Inc. We calculated EP and CEP, as appropriate, based on the prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We used the date of invoice as the date of sale. We based EP on the packed C&F, CIF duty paid, FOB, or ex-dock duty paid prices to the first unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, including: foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, and marine insurance. For CEP we also deducted those selling expenses incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including direct selling expenses ( *e.g.* , bank commissions and charges, documentation fees, *etc* .), and imputed credit. In accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Tariff Act, we deducted an amount for profit allocated to the expenses deducted pursuant to sections 772(d)(1) and

(2)of the Tariff Act. Duty Drawback Section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act provides that EP or CEP shall be increased by “the amount of any import duties imposed by the country of exportation which have been rebated, or which have not been collected, by reason of the exportation of the subject merchandise to the United States.” The Department determines that an adjustment to U.S. price for claimed duty drawback is appropriate when a company can demonstrate that there is

(i)a sufficient link between the import duty and the rebate, and

(ii)sufficient imports of the imported material inputs to account for the duty drawback received for the export of the manufactured product (the so-called “two-prong test”). *See Rajinder Pipes, Ltd. v. United States* , 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1999); *see also Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States* , 162 F. Supp. 2d 656 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2001) (Commerce's rejection of claimed adjustments to either price or cost for Indian duty drawback sustained; remanded on other grounds). Echjay claimed it received Duty Entitlement Pass Book

(DEPB)certificates from the Indian government which it books in an “Export Incentives Ledger” *See* Echjay's June 2, 2004, Section C response at Annexure H. According to Echjay, these DEPB certificates, awarded based on the FOB value of the finished goods, are intended to offset import duties on raw materials, “and also to nullify the incidence of interest rates higher than international rates, high indigenous cost of electricity and fuels, and local taxes which are built into the cost of locally produced and sold steel.” *Id* . Echjay stated it “sold” all of its DEPB certificates during the POR. *See* Echjay's November 1, 2004, Supplemental Response at page 8. Viraj claimed it received DEPB certificates to offset the Indian customs duties otherwise payable on imported raw materials. *See* Viraj's June 2, 2004 Section C, response at C-26. In a supplemental response, Viraj stated it has either used DEPB Licenses for self-import of raw material or given such DEPB Licenses to Viraj Alloys, Ltd. (VAL), an affiliated steel producer. Viraj further claimed VAL used the licenses for importing stainless steel scrap and assorted alloys used in manufacturing stainless steel billets. *See* Viraj's October 29, 2004, Supplemental Response at 9. The Department finds that Echjay and Viraj have not provided substantial evidence on the record to meet the requirement of the first prong of the two-prong test, to wit, to establish the necessary link between the import duty and the reported rebate for duty drawback. While both respondents indicated they received duty drawback in the form of certificates issued by the Government of India, they have failed to establish the necessary direct link between the import duty paid, and the rebate given by the Government of India. Echjay's response makes clear that much of the DEPB certificate program has no bearing on home market import duties of any kind. Moreover, Viraj acknowledges it did not use all its DEPB certificates to claim a rebate on the inputs used to manufacture subject stainless steel flanges but, rather, transferred some of them to VAL to import scrap and alloys for the manufacture of raw steel. Finally, we note the value of the DEPB certificates is calculated based upon the FOB prices of the finished goods, as exported. All these factors demonstrate clearly that there is no direct link between these certificates, and the companies' own imports of inputs, and the eventual production of finished goods for export. Therefore, the Department is denying a duty drawback credit for the preliminary results of this review. Normal Value A. Viability In order to determine whether there is sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( *i.e.* , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise during the POR), for each respondent we compared the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. We found no reason to determine that quantity was not the appropriate basis for these comparisons, so value was not used. *See* section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.404(b)(2). Therefore, for both respondents we based NV on home market sales to unaffiliated purchasers made in the usual quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. We based our comparisons of the volume of U.S. sales to the volume of home market and third country sales on reported stainless steel flange weight, rather than on number of pieces. The record demonstrates that there can be large differences between the weight (and corresponding cost and price) of stainless steel flanges based on relative sizes, so comparisons of aggregate data would be distorted for these products if volume comparisons were based on the number of pieces. B. Cost of Production Analysis In the most-recently completed segment of this proceeding, the Department disregarded certain Viraj sales made in the home market at less than its cost of production. *See Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 63758 (November 10, 2003) (unchanged for final, 69 FR 10409, March 5, 2004). Accordingly, in the instant review the Department determined it had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Viraj made sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in this review. *See* section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act. As a result, we solicited information on Viraj's cost of production to determine if Viraj had made below-cost home market sales in this review. C. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act we calculated cost of production

(COP)based on the sum of Viraj's cost of materials and fabrication of the foreign like product, adding amounts for home market selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A), interest expenses and packing costs. The Department relied on the COP data submitted by Viraj in its original and supplemental cost questionnaire responses for these calculations. D. Test of Home Market Prices We compared the weighted-average COP for Viraj's home market sales of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Tariff Act in order to determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market sales at prices less than COP, we examined whether:

(i)Such sales were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, and

(ii)at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and

(B)of the Tariff Act. We compared COP to home market prices, *less* any applicable movement charges and direct selling expenses. E. Results of the Cost Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act, when less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than COP we did not disregard any such sales because they were not made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than COP we disregarded the below-cost sales because they were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act. See Viraj Preliminary Analysis Memorandum, dated February 28, 2005. Based on this test, we disregarded below-cost sales made during the POR by Viraj. Price-to-Price Comparisons For Echjay and Viraj, we compared U.S. sales with contemporaneous sales of the foreign like product in India. As noted, we considered stainless steel flanges identical based on the following five criteria: grade, type, size, pressure rating, and finish. We used a 20 percent difference-in-merchandise (difmer) cost deviation cap as the maximum difference in cost allowable for similar merchandise, which we calculated as the absolute value of the difference between the U.S. and comparison market variable costs of manufacturing divided by the total cost of manufacturing of the U.S. product. For both respondents, we also made adjustments for differences in packing costs between the two markets and for movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Tariff Act. Finally, we adjusted for differences in the circumstances of sale

(COS)pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses. Finally, for Echjay, we also made adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e) for indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market or United States where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other (the “commission offset”). Constructed Value In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, we based NV on CV if we were unable to find a contemporaneous comparison market match for the U.S. sale. We calculated CV based on the cost of materials and fabrication employed in producing the subject merchandise, SG&A, and profit. In accordance with 772(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the foreign country. For selling expenses, we used the weighted-average comparison market selling expenses. Where appropriate, we made COS adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses. For Echjay, we also made adjustments for home market indirect selling expenses to offset commissions in EP comparisons. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home market at the same level of trade

(LOT)as EP or the CEP. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the home market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For CEP it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to an affiliated importer after the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP, 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 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. Finally, 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 Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997). In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained information from Echjay and Viraj about the marketing stages involved in their U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the selling activities in the respective markets. In identifying levels of trade for CEP we considered only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. *See Micron Technology v. United States* , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Generally, if the reported levels of trade are the same in the home and U.S. markets, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports differences in levels of trade the functions and activities should be dissimilar. Echjay and Viraj both reported one channel of distribution and one LOT in the home market contending that home market sales to distributors and wholesalers were made at the same level of trade, and involved the same selling activities. *See* Viraj's May 4, 2004, Section A response at 11 (Viraj Section A Response); *see also* , Echjay's May 11, 2004, Section A response at 8-9 (Echjay Section A Response). In fact, for both respondents all merchandise was sold in the home market on *ex works* terms. *See, e.g.* , Echjay's June 2, 2004, Section B Response at 7 and Viraj's June 2, 2004, Section B response, at 14. After examining the record evidence provided by both companies, we preliminarily determine that for Echjay and Viraj, a single LOT exists in the home market. Echjay and Viraj further contended they provided substantially the same level of customer support on their U.S. EP sales as they provided on their home market sales to distributors or wholesalers. For both companies this included customer contact, order processing, arranging customer pick-up at the mill, invoicing, and processing payments. The Department has determined that we will find sales to be at the same LOT when the selling functions performed for each customer class are sufficiently similar. *See* 19 CFR 351.412 (c)(2). We found the selling functions to be virtually identical for home market sales to distributors and wholesalers. We also found Echjay and Viraj performed virtually the same level of customer support services on their U.S. EP sales as they did on their home market sales. *See* Echjay Section A Response and Viraj Section A Response, *op. cit* .. Therefore, for Echjay and Viraj, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists for these companies' EP sales which is on the same LOT as sales in the home market. As to CEP sales, in its Section A Response Echjay indicated its U.S. subsidiary, Echjay USA, Inc., performed no selling activities or services beyond notifying the final customer of the merchandise's arrival at the U.S. port; customers were responsible for arranging shipment and Customs clearance at their own expense. *See* Echjay Section A Response at 9. Echjay further asserts “[f]or all our sales, both to our US market as well as our [h]ome market, the functions and services provided by us remain the same and hence the sales are at the same level of trade.” Similarly, although Viraj sells through a U.S. affiliate, Viraj USA, Inc., the subject merchandise is shipped directly to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. Viraj notes it is “claiming *no CEP* offset in calculation of normal value.” Viraj Section A Response at 14 (original emphasis). The record evidence supports a finding that in both markets and in all channels of distribution, Echjay and Viraj perform essentially the same level of services. These include order processing, packing, shipping and invoicing of sales, and processing of payments. Based on our analysis of the selling functions performed on EP and CEP sales in the United States, and sales in the home market, we determine that the EP and CEP and the starting price of home market sales represent the same stage in the marketing process, and are thus at the same LOT. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that no level of trade adjustment or CEP offset is appropriate for either Echjay or Viraj. Currency Conversions We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773(a) of the Tariff Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review we preliminarily find the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent) Echjay Forgings, Ltd. 0.03 Viraj Forgings, Ltd. 0.01 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 30 days of publication. *See* CFR 351.310(c). 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 per 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit argument 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, we would appreciate it if parties submitting written comments would 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 raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the POR divided by the total entered value, or quantity (in kilograms), as appropriate, of the examined sales. Upon completion of this review, where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we shall instruct Customs to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of flanges from India 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 rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final results of administrative review; if the rate for a particular company is zero or *de minimis, i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company;

(2)for manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review, but covered in the original less-than-fair-value

(LTFV)investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter received a company-specific rate;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the most recent period for that manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 162.14 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation (59 FR 5994, February 9, 1994). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Interested Parties 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. Dated: February 28, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-919 Filed 3-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-427-818] Low Enriched Uranium From France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Low Enriched Uranium

(LEU)from France in response to requests by USEC Inc. and the United States Enrichment Corporation (collectively, petitioners) and by Eurodif, S.A.(Eurodif), Compagnie Générale Des Matières Nucléaires (COGEMA) and COGEMA, Inc. (collectively, Eurodif/COGEMA or the respondent). This review covers sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004. We have preliminarily determined that U.S. sales have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the constructed export price

(CEP)and the NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. *See* the *Preliminary Results of Review* section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myrna Lobo or Elfi Blum-Page, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-2371 or

(202)482-0197, respectively. Background On February 13, 2002, the Department published the antidumping duty order on LEU from France in the **Federal Register** (67 FR 6680). On February 3, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order (69 FR 5125). On February 4, 2004 and February 26, 2004, respectively, the Department received timely requests for review from Eurodif/COGEMA and from petitioners. On March 26, 2004, we published a notice initiating an administrative review of the antidumping order on LEU from France covering one respondent, Eurodif/COGEMA. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 69 FR 15788 (March 26, 2004). The Department issued its original questionnaire, sections A through D, on April 14, 2004, and received timely responses. On October 28, 2004, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this antidumping duty administrative review until February 28, 2005. *See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium from France* , 69 FR 62867 (October 28, 2004). On October 29, 2004, pursuant to an allegation filed by petitioners, the Department initiated an investigation to determine whether Eurodif/COGEMA's purchases of electricity from Électricité de France (EdF), an affiliated supplier, during the period of review (POR), were made at prices below the cost of production (COP). Consequently, on November 4, 2004, and on December 23, 2004, the Department issued questionnaires on the COP of electricity and received timely, although incomplete, responses. On December 14, 2004, the petitioners filed comments stating that the respondent's costs for research and development (R&D) were under-reported. The Department is in the process of reviewing the information and argument submitted by the petitioners. In response to comments filed by petitioners, on February 10, 2005, Eurodif/COGEMA filed additional information. On the same day, the Department reiterated its request for a reconciliation of the costs of electricity from EdF's Summary Annual and Unbundled 2003 Financial Statements to the information in the record which was used to calculate the per-unit cost of electricity. *See* Memorandum to File from Myrna Lobo, “Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Low Enriched Uranium from France; Team Meeting with Outside Party,” dated February 16, 2005, on file in the Central Record Unit, Room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building (CRU). Eurodif/COGEMA filed two more submissions on the costs of electricity on February 15, 2005, and February 18, 2004, respectively. The Department notified all parties that factual information would not be accepted after February 18, 2005, unless requested by the Department. Parties were also advised that any submission filed as of February 22, 2005, would not be considered for the preliminary results of review. *See* Memorandum to File from Maria MacKay, Program Manager, “New Factual Information Deadline,” dated February 23, 2005, on file in the CRU. Period of Review This review covers the period February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is all low enriched uranium. LEU is enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF 6 ) with a U 235 product assay of less than 20 percent that has not been converted into another chemical form, such as UO 2 , or fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies, regardless of the means by which the LEU is produced (including LEU produced through the down-blending of highly enriched uranium). Certain merchandise is outside the scope of this order. Specifically, this order does not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride with a U 235 assay of 20 percent or greater, also known as highly enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is not covered by the scope of this order. For purposes of this order, fabricated uranium is defined as enriched uranium dioxide (UO 2 ), whether or not contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural uranium concentrates (U 3 O 8 ) with a U 235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates converted into uranium hexafluoride with a U 235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the scope of this order. Also excluded from this order is LEU owned by a foreign utility end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium dioxide (UO 2 ) and/or fabrication into fuel assemblies so long as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel assemblies deemed to incorporate such imported LEU

(i)remain in the possession and control of the U.S. fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their designed transporter(s) while in U.S. customs territory, and

(ii)are re-exported within eighteen

(C)of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market and/or in third country markets to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Eurodif/COGEMA's volume of home market sales and third country sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Eurodif/COGEMA did not have any sales in the home market during the POR. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) and

(C)of the Act and section 351.404

(b)of the Department's regulations, because Eurodif/COGEMA's aggregate volume of sales of the foreign like product both in Japan and Sweden was greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that Japan and Sweden are viable markets. However, due to the difficulties involved in calculating a difference-in-merchandise adjustment for non-identical products, the Department determined to use constructed value

(CV)as the basis of NV in this review. *See* Memorandum to Dana Mermelstein from Elfi Blum-Page and Myrna Lobo, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Low Enriched Uranium

(LEU)from France, Market Viability,” ( *Viability Memorandum* ) dated December 20, 2004, on file in the CRU. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of LEU from France were made in the United States at less-than-fair value (LTFV), we compared the CEP to CV, as described in the *Constructed Export Price* and *Calculation of Normal Value Based On Constructed Value* sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated CEPs and compared them to CV. We note that during the POR, the respondent sold LEU in the United States pursuant to contracts in which the respondent undertook to manufacture and deliver LEU for a cash payment covering only the value of the enrichment component; for the natural uranium feedstock component, the respondent received an amount of natural uranium equivalent to the amount used to produce the LEU shipped (so-called separative work unit

(SWU)1 contracts). However, the product manufactured and delivered by the respondent was LEU. For purposes of our antidumping analysis, we have translated prices and costs involved in SWU contracts to an LEU basis, increasing those values to account for the cost of the uranium feedstock involved. These adjustments are described in greater detail below. 1 A SWU is a unit of measurement of the effort required to separate the U235 and U238 atoms in uranium feed in order to create a final product richer in U 235 atoms. Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(b) of the 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. During the POR, Eurodif/COGEMA made sales to the United States through its U.S. affiliate, COGEMA Inc., which then resold the merchandise to unaffiliated customers. Therefore, Eurodif/COGEMA classified all of its export sales of LEU as CEP sales. As stated in section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations, the Department will use the respondent's invoice date as the date of sale unless another date better reflects the date upon which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale. In this review, we find that the material terms of sale are set in the contract between COGEMA Inc. and the U.S. customer. Therefore, as in the prior review, we have used the contract date as the date of sale. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium From France* , 69 FR 46501 (August 3, 2004). The Department calculated CEP for Eurodif/COGEMA based on packed prices to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. For all sales, which involved payments on a SWU basis, we translated the prices to an LEU basis, as indicated above, by adding a value for the uranium feedstock used in the production of the LEU. This value was derived from the respondent's reported entered value of feed, which was based on publicly available information used for customs entry purposes. We made deductions from the starting price, net of discounts, for movement expenses (foreign and U.S. movement, shipment of sample assays, movement of customer feed from North America to France, marine insurance, merchandise processing and U.S. harbor maintenance fees, and brokerage) in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act and section 351.401(e) of the Department's regulations. In addition, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted credit expenses and indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, incurred in the United States and France and associated with economic activities in the United States. Furthermore, in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act, we made a deduction for CEP profit. The CEP profit rate is normally calculated on the basis of total revenue and total expenses related to sales in the comparison market and the U.S. market. In this case, we based NV on CV; therefore, there was no home market profit from which to derive CEP profit. Consequently, we based CEP profit on the total expenses and total revenue related to Eurodif's U.S. and third-country sales of LEU. *See* Memorandum to the File from Myrna Lobo and Elfi Blum-Page, “Analysis of Eurodif/COGEMA for the Preliminary Results of the Second Administrative Review of Low Enriched Uranium

(LEU)from France,” February 28, 2005 ( *Prelim Analysis Memo* ). Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based on comparison market sales, NV may be based on CV. Because of the difficulties involved in calculating a difference-in-merchandise adjustment for non-identical products ( *see* the *Home Market Viability* section above), in this review the Department determined to use CV as the basis of NV. Section 773(e) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication of the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), profit, and U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, we based general and administrative (G&A) expenses on amounts derived from Eurodif's financial statements. In our calculation of the interest expense, we based financial expenses on the financial statements of COGEMA's parent company, AREVA, which represents the highest level of consolidation for Eurodif. For selling expenses, we used information on indirect selling expenses in third countries, including Japan, provided in the questionnaire response. Where appropriate, we made circumstance of sale

(COS)adjustments to CV, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and section 351.410 of the Department's regulations. We calculated profit in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and the Statement of Administrative Action regarding the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess.

(SAA)841. A positive amount for profit must be included in the CV. There were no home market sales during the POR, and, based on our calculations, there is no positive amount of profit with respect to third country sales. Thus, we find that it is appropriate to use a profit rate based on AREVA's front end division. 2 AREVA's front end division's activities are similar to Eurodif/COGEMA's business operations, and, according to AREVA's annual report, a substantial percentage of AREVA's front end activities were associated with sales outside the United States. These similarities lead us to conclude that this is a reasonable method for calculating Eurodif's profit. Therefore, lacking other alternatives, we used a CV profit rate based on AREVA's front end division. *See Prelim Analysis Memo.* The profit cap under section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act cannot be calculated in this case because we do not have information allowing us to calculate the amount normally realized by exporters or producers (other than respondent) in connection with the sale, for consumption in the foreign country, of the merchandise in the same general category. 2 According to AREVA's 2003 Annual Report, the AREVA group operates in every area of the nuclear fuel cycle. In the Front End of the cycle, it supplies uranium ore, and converts and enriches the uranium in order to fabricate the fuel assemblies that go into the reactor core. Specifically, the Front End division is in charge of:

(1)Uranium ore exploration, mining, and treatment (concentration);

(2)uranium conversion into a chemical form suitable for enrichment;

(3)uranium 235 enrichment; and

(4)fuel fabrication and assembly. *See* Eurodif/COGEMA Supplemental Sections A-D response, dated October 18, 2004, Exhibit A-66 at page 27. Electricity is considered a major input into the production of LEU. Eurodif obtained electricity from its affiliated supplier, EdF. On June 9, 2004, the petitioners alleged that Eurodif purchased electricity from EdF at prices less than the affiliated suppliers' COP during the POR. After reviewing the allegation, the Department determined that petitioners' major input allegation provided a reasonable basis on which to initiate an investigation of Eurodif's purchases of electricity from EdF. *See* Memorandum from Myrna Lobo and Elfi Blum-Page, Case Analysts, to Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office 6, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Low Enriched Uranium from France, Petitioners' Allegation of Purchases of a Major Input From Electricité de France (EdF), an Affiliated Party, at Prices Below the Affiliated Party's Cost of Production,” dated October 29, 2004. Section 773(f)(3) of the Act states that “{i}f, in the case of a transaction between affiliated persons involving the production by one of such persons of a major input to the merchandise, the administering authority has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that an amount represented as the value of such input is less than the cost of production of such input, then the administering authority may determine the value of the major input on the basis of the information available regarding such cost of production, if such cost is greater than the amount that would be determined for such input under paragraph (2).” 3 In applying the major input rule under § 351.407(b) of the Department's regulations, the Department will normally compare the transfer price between affiliates to the market price for the input to ensure that the transfer price is at least reflective of the market price. For major inputs, the Department then compares the transfer price and the market price to the COP to ensure that the transfer price charged recovers the producer's costs of production. As such, we evaluated the affiliated supplier's reported electricity COP. 3 Paragraph 2 of section 773(f) of the Act is the transactions disregarded rule. On November 4, 2004, the Department solicited information from the respondent regarding the calculation of EdF's COP. On December 23, 2004, we asked for clarification on the significant differences between the reported single average cost figure and the expense amounts shown in EdF's annual report. As we are unable to ascertain the reconciling differences between the reported costs and the costs shown in the annual report, we have adjusted EdF's reported cost of producing electricity by calculating a single weighted-average cost of producing electricity for the POR based on the information from EdF's annual report. *See Use of Partial Facts Available* section below. Because the calculated COP for electricity exceeded the transfer price Eurodif paid to EdF for the electricity purchased, we calculated CV based on the COP of EdF, in accordance with section 773(f)(3) of the Act. For a full discussion of the COP of electricity, due to the proprietary nature of this information ( *see Prelim Analysis Memo* ). Use of Partial Facts Available The Department has determined that the use of partial facts available is appropriate for purposes of determining the preliminary dumping margin for subject merchandise sold by Eurodif/COGEMA. Specifically, as indicated above, the Department has applied partial facts available to its CV calculation with respect to electricity, a major input into the production of LEU ( *see Prelim Analysis Memo* ). Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party or any other person

(A)withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority;

(B)fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782 of the Act;

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under this subtitle; or

(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title. As indicated above, on November 4, 2004, the Department issued a questionnaire, requesting that Eurodif/COGEMA provide the actual per-unit cost of its affiliated electricity supplier and provide worksheets demonstrating the derivation of this cost from the affiliated supplier's cost accounting system. The Department issued another questionnaire on December 23, 2004, requesting that Eurodif/COGEMA provide documentary support for the information already provided and to reconcile such information to EdF's financial statements. The Department's detailed questions concerning the reconciliation of the information provided are contained in the public versions of the two major input questionnaires, which are on file in the CRU. As long recognized by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), the burden to create a complete and accurate record is on the respondent, not on the Department. *See Pistachio Group of the Association Food Industries* v. *United States* , 671 F. Supp. 31, 39-40 (CIT 1987). In its narrative response to the Department's second questionnaire, dated January 19, 2005, the respondent indicated that this is an unusually pressing and challenging time for EdF's financial department and that EdF is in the process of closing its year-end books and preparing its annual financial statements. In addition, respondent claimed that EdF staff was responding to numerous projects at the discretion of its new management and was also preparing for a public offering of the company's capital. Eurodif/COGEMA repeatedly stated that EdF would provide any further information at verification. Eurodif/COGEMA submitted additional information on February 10, 2005, and a partial cost reconciliation on February 15, 2005, which the Department determined to be insufficient. On February 18, 2005, Eurodif/COGEMA filed additional information pertaining to EdF's cost reconciliation, which the Department still considered to be insufficient. At that point, due to the imminent preliminary results of review, the Department notified all parties that no new information would be accepted unless requested by the Department, and that any submission filed as of February 22, 2005, would not be considered for these preliminary results. The Department also indicated that it would solicit more information from respondent regarding EdF's COP after the issuance of the preliminary results and that it would revisit the electricity cost calculation in computing the CV for the final results of this review. Consequently, for these preliminary results, the Department has determined that Eurodif/COGEMA has not cooperated to the best of its ability in responding to the Department's request for information. In accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) and

(B)of the Act, we are applying partial facts otherwise available in calculating Eurodif/COGEMA's dumping margin. As facts available, the Department has used a COP for electricity calculated on the basis of EdF's 2003 financial statements. *See Prelim Analysis Memo.* Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade

(LOT)as the U.S. sales. *See* section 351.412(c)(1)(ii) of the Department's regulations. The LOT of the sales on which NV is based is the level of the starting-price sale in the comparison market; when NV is based on CV, the LOT is the level of the sales from which we derive SG&A and profit. For CEP, the U.S. LOT is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. *See* § 351.412 of the Department's regulations. Generally, to determine whether the sales on which NV is based are at a different LOT than the CEP 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 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 the comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the 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 Act (the CEP offset provision). *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes From Canada,* 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 2002); *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,* 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997). For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of certain expenses and CEP profit under section 772(d) of the Act. *See Micron Technology Inc.* v. *United States* , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (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 Administrative Review* , 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000). In the current review, Eurodif/COGEMA provided information about the marketing stages involved in the reported U.S. sales, as well as in the home market and in third countries, including a description of the selling activities performed by the respondent for each channel of distribution. Given that all U.S. sales were CEP sales, we considered only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. In the U.S. market, the respondent sells to utility customers through one channel of distribution. After deducting expenses associated with the selling activities reflected in the price under section 772(d) of the Act ( *i.e.* , the expenses of COGEMA Inc.), we examined the remaining selling expenses which were associated with such activities as strategic planning and marketing, customer sales contact, production planning and evaluation, contract administration, pricing, and quality assurance. These expenses were provided through one U.S. channel of distribution. Therefore, we found all U.S. sales to be made at a single LOT. Because Eurodif/COGEMA had sales to third countries during the POR, we based our LOT analysis on Eurodif/COGEMA's third country sales. For such sales, the evidence on the record indicates that eight of the 13 categories of selling functions Eurodif performs are at the same level of activity, and five are performed at differing levels of activity, compared to sales to the United States. 4 Accordingly, we find that Eurodif generally performs the same kinds of selling functions and, in most cases, at the same level of intensity in both markets, the United States and third countries. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Eurodif/COGEMA's sales to the United States and to third countries are made at the same LOT. Accordingly, we have made no LOT adjustment or CEP offset in our margin calculation program for these preliminary results. For a more detailed discussion, *see Prelim Analysis Memo.* 4 *See* Eurodif/COGEMA's Section A questionnaire response dated May 18, 2004, at page A-20 to A-25 and Exhibit A-4. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions pursuant to section 351.415 of the Department's regulations based on rates certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) Eurodif/COGEMA 21.71 Public Comment Pursuant to section 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 section 351.309 of the Department's regulations, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless extended by the Department, case briefs are to be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, are to be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:

(1)A statement of the issues, and

(2)a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with section 351.303(f) of the Department's regulations. Also, pursuant to section 351.310

(c)of the Department's regulations, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Parties will be notified of the time and location. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief, no later than 120 days after publication of these preliminary results, unless extended. *See* section 351.213(h) of the Department's regulations. Duty Assessment The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to section 351.212(b) of the Department's regulations, the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each respondent. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit rates will be effective with respect to all shipments of LEU from France entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)For Eurodif/COGEMA, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the 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 subject merchandise; and

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered by this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate shall be the all other rate established in the LTFV investigation, which is 19.95 percent. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Low Enriched Uranium fro France,* 67 FR 6680 (February 13, 2002). These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations 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. This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 28, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-920 Filed 3-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-825] Oil Country Tubular Goods From Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Boord or Nicholas Czajkowski, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-6345 or

(202)482-1395, respectively. Background On August 31, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received timely requests to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from Korea. On September 22, 2004, the Department published a notice of initiation of this administrative review, covering the period of August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004 (69 FR 56745). The preliminary results are currently due no later than May 3, 2005. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to complete the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary results to a maximum of 365 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested. We are currently analyzing a number of complex issues with respect to the basis for normal value which must be addressed prior to the issuance of the preliminary results. Specifically, our analysis of input cost issues and comparison market issues requires additional time and makes it impracticable to complete the preliminary results of this review within the originally anticipated time limit. Accordingly, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results of this administrative review until no later than August 31, 2005, which is 365 days from the last day of the anniversary month. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days after publication of the preliminary results notice. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-923 Filed 3-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-504] Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiries of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiries of Antidumping Duty Order: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China. SUMMARY: In response to a request from the National Candle Association (“NCA” or “Petitioners”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is initiating an anticircumvention inquiry pursuant to section 781(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (“the Act”) to determine whether mixed wax candles composed of petroleum wax and varying amounts of either palm or vegetable-based waxes have been subject to a minor alteration such that the addition of the non-petroleum content to these candles results in products that are “altered in form or appearance in minor respects” from the subject merchandise that these mixed wax petroleum candles can be considered subject to the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) under the minor alterations provision. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China* , 51 FR 30686 (August 28, 1986) (“ *Order* ”). In addition, in response to a request from the NCA, the Department is also initiating an anticircumvention inquiry pursuant to section 781(d) of the Act to determine whether mixed wax candles composed of petroleum wax and varying amounts of either palm or vegetable-based waxes are later-developed products that can be considered subject to the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the PRC under the later-developed merchandise provision. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Villanueva, Julia Hancock, or Nicole Bankhead, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3208,

(202)482-1394, and

(202)482-9068, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 8, 2004, Petitioners requested that the Department conduct an anticircumvention inquiry pursuant to section 781(d) of the Act to determine whether candles containing palm or vegetable-based waxes as the majority ingredient and exported to the United States are circumventing the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the PRC. On October 12, 2004, Petitioners requested that the Department conduct an anticircumvention inquiry pursuant to section 781(c) of the Act to determine whether candles containing palm or vegetable-based waxes and exported to the United States are circumventing the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the PRC. On November 15, 2004, the Candle Corporation of America (“CCA”), a domestic producer, submitted comments in opposition to Petitioners' request that the Department initiate this anticircumvention inquiry. On November 15, 2004, the Department extended the deadline by three weeks for initiating the later-developed merchandise anticircumvention inquiry from November 22, 2004, to December 13, 2004. In addition, on November 15, 2004, the Department extended by three weeks the deadline for initiating the minor alterations anticircumvention inquiry, from November 26, 2004, to December 17, 2004. On November 16, 2004, Russ Berrie & Company, Inc. (“Russ Berrie”), a domestic importer, submitted comments in opposition to Petitioners' request that the Department initiate an anticircumvention inquiry. On December 2, 2004, J.C. Penney Company, Inc., Target Corporation, the National Retail Federation, the MVP Group, the Candle Company, and the World at Large, hereinafter collectively known as the Coalition for Free Trade in Candles (“CFTC”), which represents these domestic importers, submitted comments in opposition to Petitioners' request that the Department initiate an anticircumvention inquiry. On December 6, 2004, Fine Arts Marketing, Inc.; HomeScents, Inc.; Lava Enterprises Inc.; Makebest Industries, Ltd.; Silk Road Gifts, Inc.; Tag Trade Associates Group, Ltd. and Zodax, Inc., hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Tuttle Importers,” submitted comments in these domestic importers' opposition to Petitioners' request that the Department initiate an anticircumvention inquiry. On December 9, 2004, Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments to the Department in response to comments made by those parties opposing Petitioners' request for the initiation of an anticircumvention inquiry. On December 10, 2004, Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc. (“Pier 1”), a domestic importer, submitted comments in opposition to Petitioners' request that the Department initiate an anticircumvention inquiry. On December 13, 2004, the Department extended the later-developed merchandise anticircumvention initiation deadline because additional information was needed for the Department to make a decision within the established time limits to initiate an anticircumvention inquiry. The deadline for initiating the later-developed merchandise anticircumvention inquiry was extended by sixty days from December 13, 2004, to February 11, 2005. Also on December 13, 2004, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Petitioners regarding several areas in the later-developed merchandise anticircumvention request that needed further clarification. In addition, on December 13, 2004, the Department extended the minor alterations anticircumvention initiation deadline a second time because additional information was needed Department to make a decision within the established time limits to initiate an anticircumvention inquiry. The deadline for initiating the minor alterations anticircumvention inquiry was extended by sixty days from December 17, 2004, to February 15, 2005. Also, on December 13, 2004, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Petitioners addressing several areas in the minor alterations anticircumvention request that needed further clarification. On December 17, 2004, Petitioners requested an extension of three weeks to respond to the Department's supplemental questionnaires. On December 20, 2004, the Department granted Petitioners an extension of fifteen days from December 27, 2004, to January 14, 2005, to respond to the Department's supplemental questionnaires. On January 14, 2005, Petitioners submitted a response to the supplemental questionnaires issued by the Department. On January 24, 2005, the CFTC requested that the Department extend the deadline for initiating the anticircumvention inquiry by one month from February 11, 2005, to March 11, 2005. On January 25, 2005, Petitioners submitted samples of candles, which were referenced in the supplemental questionnaire response filed on January 14, 2005. On January 27, 2005, Petitioners submitted comments in opposition to the CFTC's request to extend the deadline for initiating the anticircumvention inquiry. On January 28, 2005, CCA submitted comments in response to Petitioners' supplemental questionnaire response. On January 31, 2005, the Department extended the later-developed merchandise anticircumvention initiation deadline a third time because domestic interested parties needed additional time to respond to Petitioners' supplemental response. The deadline for initiating the later-developed merchandise anticircumvention inquiry was extended by ten days from February 11, 2005, to February 22, 2005. Also, on January 31, 2005, the Department extended the anticircumvention initiation deadline for the minor alterations anticircumvention inquiry by ten days from February 15, 2005, to February 25, 2005. In addition, on January 31, 2005, the Department granted CFTC and other interested parties an extension of ten days from January 28, 2005, to February 7, 2005, to submit factual information rebutting, clarifying, or corroborating factual information submitted by Petitioners to respondents on January 18, 2005. Also on January 31, 2005, Russ Berrie requested that the Department extend the deadline for initiation. In its submission, Russ Berrie noted that it had submitted interim comments rebutting Petitioners' supplemental response in case in which the Department did not extend the deadline as previously requested by the CFTC. On February 2, 2005, CFTC submitted comments in response to Petitioners' supplemental questionnaire responses. On February 7, 2005, Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments in response to comments made by interested parties regarding Petitioners' supplemental response. On February 7, 2005, Silk Road Gifts, Ltd. (“Silk Road”), a domestic importer, submitted comments in response to Petitioners' supplemental response. Also on February 7, 2005, CFTC submitted additional comments and samples of candles. On February 11, 2005, the Department placed a memorandum on the file regarding the ex parte meeting the Department had with counsel for Petitioners on February 10, 2005. On February 16, 2005, the Department placed a memorandum on the file regarding the ex parte meeting Acting Assistant Secretary Joseph Spetrini had with members of the Coalition for Free Trade in Candles on February 15, 2005. On February 18, 2005, the Department extended the initiation deadline of the anticircumvention inquiry by three days from February 22, 2005, to February 25, 2005. Additionally, on February 18, 2005, Qindao Kingking Applied Chemistry Co., Ltd.; Shonfeld's (USA), Inc.; Alef Judaica, Inc.; and Amscan, Inc. submitted comments in response to Petitioners' supplemental questionnaire response. On February 24, 2005, a memorandum to the file was placed by the Department regarding the ex parte meeting that the Acting Assistant Secretary Joseph Spetrini had with counsel for Petitioners on February 23, 2005. Additionally, on February 24, 2005, Petitioners filed further rebuttal comments. Scope of Order The products covered by this order are certain scented or unscented petroleum wax candles made from petroleum wax and having fiber or paper-cored wicks. They are sold in the following shapes: tapers, spirals, and straight-sided dinner candles; round, columns, pillars, votives; and various wax-filled containers. The products were classified under the Tariff Schedules of the United States (“TSUS”) 755.25, Candles and Tapers. The product covered are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) item 3406.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience purposes, our written description remains dispositive. *See Order; see also Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 77990 (December 29, 2004). Initiation of Minor Alterations Anticircumvention Proceeding Section 781(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department may find circumvention of an antidumping duty order when products which are of the class or kind of merchandise subject to an antidumping duty order have been “altered in form or appearance in minor respects * * * whether or not included in the same tariff classification.” Based on the language contained in the petition, the antidumping duty order, and the fact that the domestic “like product” determinations of the ITC are not dispositive, the Department finds that there is sufficient basis to initiate an anticircumvention inquiry pursuant to section 781(c) of the Act to determine whether the addition of vegetable and/or palm-based wax results in a minor alteration, and thus, a change so insignificant as to render the petroleum based, mixed candle subject to the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the PRC. 1 1 The various comments submitted by interested parties will be considered by the Department in its final determination. Scope of the Minor Alterations Anticircumvention Proceeding Petitioners argue that it is almost impossible to specify in this application all or most all PRC producers and importers of mixed wax petroleum wax candles containing varying amounts of palm or other vegetable-based waxes because of the continuously increasing quantity of imports of these candles into the United States. Additionally, Petitioners argue that an application requesting an anticircumvention inquiry and a resulting determination finding circumvention limited to only a few companies and specific candles would have little to no effect in preventing circumvention of the order. The Department recognizes that Petitioners have limited information available to them at this time regarding the production, exportation and importation of mixed wax petroleum wax candles containing varying amounts of palm or other vegetable-based waxes. Specifically, we agree that obtaining subject and non-subject import data from the only tariff classification for all candles and the unknown number of companies producing and exporting to the United States mixed wax petroleum wax candles containing varying amounts of palm and/or vegetable-based waxes is difficult. However, we also note that Petitioners have provided a list of companies importing and, to a certain extent, identified those companies producing/exporting mixed wax petroleum wax candles varying amounts of palm and/or vegetable-based waxes based on that companies' scope ruling request submitted to the Department. *See Petitioners' Minor Alterations Supplemental Response* (January 14, 2005) at Appendix I. In addition, Petitioners have provided, where available, specific model/product/SKU numbers for consideration in this anticircumvention inquiry using the data from the companies' scope ruling requests previously submitted to the Department. *See Petitioners' Minor Alterations Submission* (October 12, 2004) at Appendix 1. We are initiating this anticircumvention inquiry on particular PRC exporters, as identified by Petitioners in Appendix 1 of their January 14, 2005, submission. However, within 45 days of the date of initiation of this inquiry, if the Department receives sufficient evidence that other PRC manufacturers are involved in the production of mixed wax petroleum wax candles containing varying amounts of palm and/or vegetable-based waxes for export to the United States, we will consider examining such additional manufacturers. The Department will not order the suspension of liquidation of entries of any additional merchandise at this time. However, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), if the Department issues a preliminary affirmative determination, we will then instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit of estimated duties on the merchandise. Initiation of Later-Developed Merchandise Anticircumvention Proceeding Section 781(d)(1)(A) of the Act provides that the Department may find circumvention of an antidumping duty order when merchandise is developed after an investigation is initiated (“later-developed merchandise”). Based on the language contained in the petition and the antidumping duty order, and the fact that the domestic like product determinations of the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) is not dispositive, the Department finds that there is sufficient basis to initiate an anticircumvention inquiry pursuant to section 781(d) of the Act to determine whether candles produced through the addition of vegetable and/or palm-based wax to petroleum wax are later-developed products that can be considered subject to the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the PRC under the later-developed merchandise provision. 2 2 The Department recognizes that certain parties submitted comments addressing certain factors as required by section 781(d) of the Act, however the Department will address these comments in the final determination. The Department recognizes that the ITC's final injury determination states that “commercial production of candles generally uses “natural” waxes (paraffins, microcrystallines, stearic acid, and beeswax) in various combinations.” *See Candles from the People's Republic of China* , Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Final), USITC Publication 1888 (August 1986) at 2 (“ITC Final Determination”). In addition, we note that the *ITC Final Determination* defined petroleum wax candles “as those composed of over 50 percent petroleum wax,” and noted that such candles “may contain other waxes in varying amounts, depending on the size and shape of the candle, to enhance the melt-point, viscosity, and burning power.” *Id* . However, because the Department did not address the proportion of these waxes that would be indicative of petroleum wax candles, there is no clear basis for the Department to make a conclusive determination that candles with non-petroleum waxes in a different proportion are not later-developed merchandise. Consequently, we are initiating this inquiry under section 781(d) of the Act. In addition, parties may submit comments regarding the appropriateness of our later-developed analysis as provided in this notice, no later than thirty days from the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal comments are due no later than forty days from the date of publication of this notice. The Department will not order the suspension of liquidation of entries of any additional merchandise at this time. However, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), if the Department issues a preliminary affirmative determination, we will then instruct CBP to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit of estimated duties on the merchandise. We intend to notify the ITC in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination of circumvention, in accordance with 781(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f)(7)(i)(C).The Department will, following consultation with interested parties, establish a schedule for questionnaires and comments on the issues. The Department intends to issue its final determinations within 300 days of the date of publication of this initiation. This notice is published in accordance with sections 781(c) and 781(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(i). Dated: February 25, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-918 Filed 3-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-851] Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting the fifth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004. We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the period of review (“POR”), for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above *de minimis* . Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Musser or Brian C. Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1777, or

(202)482-1766, respectively. Background On February 19, 1999, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC. *See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,* 64 FR 8308 (February 19, 1999). On February 3, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC. *See* Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 69 FR 5125 (February 3, 2004). On February 5 and 27, 2004, the Department received timely requests from Dingyuan Import & Export Corporation (“Dingyuan”), Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd., Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd., (“Gerber”), Guangxi Hengxian Pro-Light Foods, Inc. (“Guangxi Hengxian”), Primera Harvest (Xiangfan) Co., Ltd. (“Primera Harvest”), Shantou Hongda Industrial General Corporation, (“Shantou Hongda”), Shandong Jiufa Edible Fungus Corporation, Ltd. (“Jiufa”), and Xiamen International Trade & Industrial Co., Ltd. (“XITIC”) for an administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b). On February 27, 2004, the petitioner 1 requested an administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b) of 19 companies, 2 which it claimed were producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise. Five of these 19 companies also requested a review. 1 The petitioner is the Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom Trae which includes the following domestic companies: L.K. Bowman, Inc., Monterey Mushrooms, Inc., Mushrooms Canning Company, and Sunny Dell Foods, Inc. 2 The petitioner's request included the following companies:

(1)China Processed Food Import & Export Company (“COFCO”) and its affiliates China National Cereals, Oils, & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corporation (“China National”), COFCO (Zhangzhou) Food Industrial Co., Ltd. (“COFCO Zhangzhou”), Fujian Zishan Group Co. (“Fujian Zishan”), Xiamen Jiahua Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd. (“Xiamen Jiahua”), and Fujian Yu Xing Fruit & Vegetable Foodstuff Development Co. (“Yu Xing”);

(2)Gerber;

(3)Green Fresh Foods (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd. and its affiliate Zhangzhou Longhai Lubao Food Co., Ltd.;

(4)Guangxi Hengxian;

(5)Guangxi Yizhou Dongfang Cannery (“Guangxi Yizhou”);

(6)Guangxi Yulin Oriental Food Co.; Ltd. (“Guangxi Yulin”);

(7)Nanning Runchao Industrial Trade Co., Ltd. (“Nanning Runchao”);

(8)Primera Harvest;

(9)Raoping Xingyu Foods Co., Ltd. (“Raoping Xingyu”) and its affiliate Raoping Yucun Canned Foods Factory (“Raoping Yucun”);

(10)Shanghai Superlucky Import & Export Company, Ltd. (“Superlucky”);

(11)Shantou Hongda;

(12)Shenxian Dongxing Foods Co., Ltd. (“Shenxian Dongxing”);

(13)Shenzhen Qunxingyuan Trading Co., Ltd. (“Shenzhen Qunxingyuan”);

(14)Tak Fat Trading Co. (“Tak Fat”) and its affiliate Mei Wei Food Industry Co., Ltd. (“Mei Wei”);

(15)Xiamen Zhongjia Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. (“Zhongjia”);

(16)XITIC and its affiliate Inter-Foods D.S. Co., Ltd.;

(17)Zhangzhou Hongning Canned Food Factory;

(18)Zhangzhou Jingxiang Foods Co., Ltd.; and

(19)Zhangzhou Longhai Minhui Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. (“Minhui”). On March 30, 2004, the Department initiated an administrative review covering the companies listed in the requests received from the interested parties. ( *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews,* 69 FR 15788, 15801 (March 26, 2004)). On October 15, 2004, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of postponement of the preliminary results until no later than February 28, 2005 (69 FR 61202). Respondents On March 30, 2004, we issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to each PRC company listed in the above-referenced initiation notice. On April 1, 2004, the respondents Guangxi Yizhou, Nanning Runchao, Raoping Xingyu and its affiliate Raoping Yucun, Shenxian Dongxing, and Shenzhen Qunxingyuan each indicated that it did not have shipments of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On May 7, 2004, the respondents Minhui, Primera Harvest, Superlucky, Tak Fat and its affiliate Mei Wei, and Zhongjia each indicated that it did not have shipments of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. From May 13 through May 28, 2004, COFCO and its affiliates, Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, Shantou Hongda, and XITIC submitted their responses to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. From May 29 through July 15, 2004, the petitioner submitted comments on the questionnaire responses provided by COFCO, Gerber, Green Fresh, and Guangxi Hengxian. From July 7 through August 3, 2004, the Department issued COFCO, Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, Shantou Hongda, and XITIC supplemental questionnaires. On August 3, 2004, Shantou Hongda indicated that it no longer intended to participate in this review and requested that the Department extend the time limit for withdrawing its request for an administrative review. From August 11 through September 13, 2004, COFCO, Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, and XITIC submitted their responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaire. From September 16 through October 18, 2004, the petitioner submitted additional comments on the questionnaire responses provided by COFCO, Gerber, and Guangxi Hengxian. From October 12 through November 29, 2004, the Department issued COFCO, Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, and XITIC second supplemental questionnaires. From November 9 through December 27, 2004, COFCO, Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, and XITIC submitted their responses to the Department's second supplemental questionnaires. On December 2, 2004, the petitioner submitted additional comments on the second supplemental questionnaire response provided by Guangxi Hengxian. On November 18, 2004, the Department issued Gerber a third supplemental questionnaire which it submitted on December 16, 2004. On December 20, 2004, the Department issued Guangxi Hengxian a third supplemental questionnaire which it submitted on January 12, 2005. On December 29, 2004, the Department issued COFCO a third supplemental questionnaire which it submitted on January 25, 2005. From December 17 through December 20, 2004, the Department issued COFCO, Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, and XITIC a sales and cost reconciliation questionnaire, which the respondents submitted from January 19, through January 26, 2005. On December 29, 2004, the Department issued Gerber a fourth supplemental questionnaire which it submitted on January 24, 2005. As a result of not receiving its response to the antidumping duty questionnaire, the Department issued a letter to Zhangzhou Jingxiang on January 3, 2005, which notified this company of the consequences of not having responded to the Department's antidumping questionnaire. On January 18, 2005, the petitioner submitted additional comments on the questionnaire responses provided by COFCO. Surrogate Country and Factors On April 29, 2004, the Department provided the parties an opportunity to submit publicly available information (“PAI”) for consideration in these preliminary results. On August 16, 2004, the petitioner, Gerber, Guangxi Hengxian, Jiufa, and XITIC submitted PAI for use in valuing the factors of production. On August 26, 2004, the petitioner, Guangxi Hengxian, and Jiufa submitted additional PAI. On September 7, 2004, the petitioner submitted additional PAI and comments. On October 22, 2004, Guangxi Hengxian and Jiufa submitted comments on the Department's surrogate value for labor which was posted on the Department's Web site on October 6, 2004. On January 10, 2005, Guangxi Hengxian and Jiufa submitted additional surrogate values for consideration in this review. Pre-Preliminary Results Comments On February 4, 2005, the petitioner submitted pre-preliminary results comments on the domestic re-sale data provided by Gerber in this review ( *see* February 28, 2005, Memorandum to the File from case analyst). Period of Review The POR is February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004. Scope of Order The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species *Agaricus bisporus* and *Agaricus bitorquis.* “Preserved mushrooms” refer to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers including, but not limited to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including, but not limited to, water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Preserved mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of this order are “brined” mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing. Excluded from the scope of this order are the following:

(1)All other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms;

(2)all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched mushrooms”;

(3)dried mushrooms;

(4)frozen mushrooms; and

(5)“marinated,” “acidified,” or “pickled” mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain oil or other additives. 3 3 On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that “marinated,” “acidified,” or “pickled” mushrooms containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are within the scope of the antidumping duty order. *See* “Recommendation Memorandum-Final Ruling of Request by Tak Fat, *et al.* for Exclusion of Certain Marinated, Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,” dated June 19, 2000. On February 9, 2005, this decision was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. *See Tak Fat* v. *United States,* Court No. 04-1131, 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Partial Rescission of Administrative Review We are preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to Guangxi Yizhou, Minhui, Nanning Runchao, Primera Harvest, Raoping Xingyu and its affiliate Raoping Yucun, Shenxian Dongxing, Shenzhen Qunxingyuan, Superlucky, Tak Fat and its affiliate Mei Wei, and Zhongjia, because the shipment data we examined did not show U.S. entries of the subject merchandise during the POR from these companies ( *see* February 28, 2005, Memorandum to the File from case analyst). Non-Market Economy Country In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (“NME”) country. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is a NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. ( *See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission in Part* , 69 FR 70638 (December 7, 2004)). None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries. Surrogate Country Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or more market-economy countries that

(1)are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and

(2)are significant producers of comparable merchandise. India is among the countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic development ( *see* April 13, 2004, Memorandum from the Office of Policy to Irene Darzenta Tzafolias). In addition, based on publicly available information placed on the record ( *e.g.* , world production data), India is a significant producer of the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we have considered India the surrogate country for purposes of valuing the factors of production because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate-country selection ( *see* Memorandum Re: 5th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country, dated February 28, 2005, for further discussion). Facts Available—Green Fresh For the reasons stated below, we have preliminarily applied partial adverse facts available to Green Fresh. Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, if an interested party withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested (subject to sections 782(c)(1) and 782(e) of the Act), significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or provides information which cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. In this review, Green Fresh reported both export price (“EP”) and constructed export price (“CEP”) sales transactions of subject merchandise during the POR. However, Green Fresh failed to provide critical information that the Department must have in order to rely on its CEP sales transactions. Specifically, in the Department's original questionnaire, we requested that Green Fresh provide the financial and sales data for its U.S. affiliates' sales transactions of subject merchandise made during the POR. In response to the Department's questionnaire, Green Fresh did not report any data for its U.S. affiliates. The Department, in its first supplemental questionnaire, requested that this respondent provide sales and audited financial data ( *i.e.* , financial statements and U.S. tax returns) for its two U.S. affiliates ( *i.e.* , Green Mega and Family Mutual Corporation). Although Green Fresh provided sales price data for its two U.S. affiliates in response to our first supplemental questionnaire, it also stated that it was unable to provide the other requested information at that time because it had requested an extension until December 15, 2004, to file its 2003 Federal tax returns with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Further, Green Fresh stated that it would provide audited financial statements and tax returns for both of its U.S. affiliates promptly after issuance. The Department, in its second supplemental questionnaire, instructed Green Fresh that it must provide the finalized financial statements and tax returns for both of its U.S. affiliates when they become available (which in this case was December 16, 2004), and Green Fresh, in response to this questionnaire, stated that it will submit the requested documentation by December 16, 2004. Green Fresh failed to provide the requested financial and tax return data applicable during the POR for its two U.S. affiliates, despite the fact that the Department issued Green Fresh two supplemental questionnaires on this matter ( *see* the Department's July 29 and October 25, 2004, supplemental questionnaires). Moreover, Green Fresh did not include the requested data in its sales and cost reconciliation questionnaire response submitted on January 19, 2005. Because most of Green Fresh's reported CEP sales transactions during this POR were first sold through Green Mega before being re-sold through Green Fresh's other U.S. affiliate ( *i.e.* , Family Mutual Corporation) to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer, Green Mega's U.S. financial data is necessary to support the information reported for these CEP sales transactions. Without this requested information, the Department is unable to determine the complete universe of Green Mega's sales transactions during the POR in order to ensure that all U.S. sales of subject merchandise have been reported. Moreover, without this requested information, the Department is unable to rely on the sales data reported by Family Mutual Corporation because all of its reported CEP sales transactions originally were purchased from Green Mega before being resold to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer during the POR. Family Mutual Corporation's financial information is necessary for deriving an amount for CEP profit and indirect selling expenses. Without these data sources, the Department cannot accurately assess the reliability and completeness of Family Mutual Corporation's sales data. For these CEP sales transactions, the Department also requested, and Green Fresh failed to provide,

(1)worksheets which supported its per-unit amounts for customs duties;

(2)shipment dates; and

(3)selling expense data applicable for Green Mega during the POR. This information is necessary for the Department to calculate a proper dumping margin. Section 782(d) of the Act requires that the Department allow parties to remedy deficient submissions to the extent that time limits in the review period allow. As stated above, the Department gave Green Fresh multiple opportunities to provide the necessary financial data, including through the date by which Green Fresh, itself, indicated it would provide the data. Accordingly, the Department met its obligations under section 782(d). As discussed above, both of Green Fresh's U.S. affiliates failed to provide critical information necessary to substantiate Green Fresh's reported CEP sales data. As a result, the Department is unable to rely on Green Fresh's CEP data. Therefore, we find that, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the use of facts available is warranted in this segment of the proceeding with respect to Green Fresh. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of that party as facts otherwise available. Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that, in selecting from among the facts available, the Department may employ adverse inferences against an interested party if that party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. *See also* “Statement of Administrative Action” accompanying the URAA, H. Rep. No. 103-316, 870

(1994)(“SAA”). As stated above, Green Fresh indicated to the Department that it had the ability to report its U.S. affiliates' financial data and supporting documentation but it failed to do so. We therefore find that Green Fresh failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in this segment of the proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we have made an adverse inference with respect to Green Fresh. In this segment of the proceeding, in accordance with the Department's practice ( *see* , *e.g.* , *Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of the Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Results of the Seventh New Shipper Review* , 68 FR 1031, 1033 (January 8, 2003)), as partial adverse facts available, we have assigned to Green Fresh's reported CEP sales transactions a rate of 198.63 percent, which is the PRC-wide rate. The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information on the record is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce a respondent to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” ( *See Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan* , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).) The Department is not applying total adverse facts available because, pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, because we believe that sufficient record information established the reliability of the data which Green Fresh reported for its EP sales transactions to calculate an appropriate margin. Thus, we are only applying as partial adverse facts available a rate of 198.63 percent to Green Fresh's reported CEP sales transactions. Facts Available—Dingyuan, Shantou Hongda, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang For the reasons stated below, we have applied total adverse facts available to Dingyuan, Shantou Hongda, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang. On August 3, 2004, Shantou Hongda informed the Department that it no longer intended to participate in this review ( *see* Shantou Hongda's August 3, 2004, submission). Pursuant to sections 776(a) and

(b)of the Act, the Department may apply adverse facts available if it finds a respondent has not acted to the best of its ability in cooperating with the Department in this segment of the proceeding. The Department was unable to ascertain the accuracy of Shantou Hongda's submitted data or determine whether Shantou Hongda was entitled to a separate rate because Shantou Hongda stated that it no longer intended to participate in this review after the Department issued it a supplemental questionnaire. As a result, Shantou Hongda did not provide the Department with requested information. With respect to Dingyuan and Zhangzhou Jingxiang, both companies failed to respond to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. Dingyuan, Shantou Hongda, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang, accordingly, each failed to act to the best of its ability in cooperating with the Department's request for information in this segment of the proceeding. As a result, none of these companies is eligible to receive a separate rate and will be part of the PRC NME entity, subject to the PRC-wide rate. Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we have applied total adverse facts available with respect to the PRC-wide entity, including Dingyuan, Shantou Hongda, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang. In this segment of the proceeding, in accordance with Department practice ( *see, e.g., Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of the Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Results of the Seventh New Shipper Review,* 68 FR 1031, 1033 (January 8, 2003)), as adverse facts available, we have assigned to exports of the subject merchandise by Dingyuan, Shantou Hongda, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang a rate of 198.63 percent, which is the PRC-wide rate. As noted above with respect to Green Fresh, we believe that the rate assigned is appropriate to induce the respondent to provide the Department with complete, accurate, and timely submissions in future reviews. Corroboration of Facts Available Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate, to the extent practicable, a figure which it applies as facts available. To be considered corroborated, information must be found to be both reliable and relevant. We are applying as adverse facts available (“AFA”) the highest rate from any segment of this administrative proceeding, which is a rate from the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation. ( *See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China* , 64 FR 8308, 8310 (February 19, 1999)). The information upon which the AFA rate is based in the current review ( *i.e.* , the PRC-wide rate of 198.63 percent) being assigned to Dingyuan, Shantou Hongda, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang was the highest rate from the petition in the LTFV investigation. This AFA rate is the same rate which the Department assigned to Shantou Hongda in the previous review and the rate itself has not changed since the original LTFV determination. For purposes of corroboration, the Department will consider whether that margin is both reliable and relevant. The AFA rate we are applying for the current review was corroborated in reviews subsequent to the LTFV investigation to the extent that the Department referred to the history of corroboration. Furthermore, no information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of this information. ( * See e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Sixth Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review * , 69 FR 54635, 54637 (September 9, 2004) (“ *Mushrooms 4th AR Final Results* ”)). To further corroborate the AFA margin of 198.63 percent in this review, we compared that margin to the margins we found for the other respondents which sold identical and/or similar products. Based on our above-mentioned analysis, we find that 198.63 percent is within the margins for individual sales of identical and/or similar products reported by certain respondents in this review ( *see* Memorandum Re: 5th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Corroboration, dated February 28, 2005, for further discussion). Thus, the Department finds that the information is reliable. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in *Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. *See D & L Supply Co.* v. *United States,* 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). The information used in calculating this margin was based on sales and production data submitted by the respondents in the LTFV investigation, together with the most appropriate surrogate value information available to the Department chosen from submissions by the parties in the LTFV investigation, as well as gathered by the Department itself. Furthermore, the calculation of this margin was subject to comment from interested parties in the proceeding. Moreover, as there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriately used as AFA, we determine that this rate has relevance. Based on our analysis as described above, we find that the margin of 198.63 percent is reliable and has relevance. As the rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value. Accordingly, we determine that the calculated rate of 198.63 percent, which is the current PRC-wide rate, is in accord with the requirement of section 776(c) that secondary information be corroborated ( *i.e.* , that it have probative value). We have assigned this AFA rate to exports of the subject merchandise by Dingyuan, Shantou Hongda, Zhangzhou Jingxiang, and certain sales made with Green Fresh. Affiliation—COFCO To the extent that section 771(33) of the Act does not conflict with the Department's application of separate rates and enforcement of the non-market economy (“NME”) provision, section 773(c) of the Act, the Department will determine that exporters and/or producers are affiliated if the facts of the case support such a finding ( *see See Mushrooms 4th AR Final Results* , 69 FR at 54639). For the reasons discussed below, we find that this condition has not prevented us from examining whether certain exporters and/or producers are affiliated with COFCO in this administrative review. COFCO purchased preserved mushrooms from its producer, Fujian Yu Xing Fruit & Vegetable Foodstuff Development Co. (“Yu Xing”), which it then sold to the United States during the POR. COFCO is also linked through its parent company, China National Cereals, Oils, & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corporation (“China National”), and Xiamen Jiahua Import and Export Trading Co., Ltd. (“Xiamen Jiahua”) to two other preserved mushroom producers, COFCO (Zhangzhou) Food Industrial Co., Ltd. (“COFCO Zhangzhou”) and Fujian Zishan Group Co. (“Fujian Zishan”), from which COFCO purchased preserved mushrooms but claims it did not re-sell to the U.S. market during the POR ( *see* exhibit 1 of COFCO's January 21, 2005, submission). Section 771(33)(E) of the Act provides that the Department will find parties to be affiliated if any person directly or indirectly owns, controls, or holds with power to vote, five percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of any organization and such organization; section 771(33)(F) of the Act provides that parties are affiliated if two or more persons directly or indirectly control, or are controlled by, or under common control with any other person; and section 771(33)(G) of the Act provides that parties are affiliated if any person controls any other person. In this case, COFCO holds a significant ownership share in Yu Xing ( *see* exhibit 9 of COFCO's May 28, 2004, submission). Moreover, COFCO and Yu Xing share a company official who is on the board of directors at both companies and whose responsibilities include

(1)examining and executing the implementation of resolutions passed by the board members;

(2)convening shareholder meetings; and

(3)providing financial reports of each company's business performance to each company's board of directors ( *see* page A-10 and exhibit 7 of COFCO's May 28, 2004, submission; and exhibit 13 of COFCO's September 9, 2004, submission). Based on such record information, the Department has determined in this case that COFCO and Yu Xing are affiliated in accordance with sections 771(33)(E), (F), and

(G)of the Act. In addition, COFCO Zhangzhou (which also produced preserved mushrooms during the POR) appears to be affiliated with both COFCO and Yu Xing based on section 771(33) of the Act. Specifically, both COFCO and Yu Xing hold significant ownership shares in COFCO Zhangzhou ( *see* exhibit 5 of COFCO's September 9, 2004, submission). Moreover, COFCO Zhangzhou shares with COFCO and Yu Xing the same company official who is also on the board of directors at COFCO Zhangzhou, and who also performs the same responsibilities at COFCO Zhangzhou which he performs at COFCO and Yu Xing as described above ( *see* also exhibit 7 of COFCO's May 28, 2004, submission). COFCO Zhangzhou and Yu Xing also have the same general manager ( *see* also exhibit 7 of COFCO's May 28, 2004, submission). For these reasons, the Department has determined in this case that COFCO, Yu Xing, and COFCO Zhangzhou are also affiliated in accordance with section 771(33)(E), (F), and

(G)of the Act. Furthermore, based on data contained in COFCO's questionnaire responses, COFCO, COFCO Zhangzhou, and Yu Xing are also affiliated, pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act, either directly or indirectly, with two other companies ( *i.e.* , Xiamen Jiahua Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd. (“Xiamen Jiahua”) and Fujian Zishan), which sold and/or produced preserved mushrooms for markets other than the U.S. market during the POR. Specifically, COFCO's parent company, China National, holds a significant ownership share in Xiamen Jiahua ( *see* also exhibit 9 of COFCO's May 28, 2004, submission). Moreover, the same company official who is on the board of directors at COFCO, COFCO Zhangzhou, and Yu Xing is also on the board of directors at Xiamen Jiahua. In addition, this company official performs the same responsibilities at COFCO, COFCO Zhangzhou, and Yu Xing as described above, which he performs at Xiamen Jiahua ( *see* also exhibit 7 of COFCO's May 28, 2004, submission). With respect to Fujian Zishan ( *i.e.* , another producer of preserved mushrooms during the POR), we note that Xiamen Jiahua holds a significant ownership share in Fujian Zishan and that COFCO's parent company, China National, holds a significant ownership share in Xiamen Jiahua ( *see* also exhibit 9 of COFCO's May 28, 2004, submission). Also, we note that one of Fujian Zishan's board members also serves as the general manager at Xiamen Jiahua. Moreover, given that there are shared individuals in positions of control and/or influence between and among these companies as discussed above, we also find sufficient control exists between these entities to believe that Fujian Zishan is affiliated with China National, COFCO, COFCO Zhangzhou, Yu Xing, and Xiamen Jiahua in accordance with section 771(33)(G) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that COFCO, China National, COFCO Zhangzhou, Fujian Zishan, Xiamen Jiahua, and Yu Xing are affiliated through the common control of COFCO's parent company pursuant to section 771(33)(F) and

(G)of the Act. Collapsing—COFCO Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), the Department will collapse producers and treat them as a single entity where

(1)those producers are affiliated,

(2)the producers have production facilities for producing similar or identical products that would not require substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities, and

(3)there is a significant potential for manipulation of price or production. In determining whether a significant potential for manipulation exists, the regulations provide that the Department may consider various factors, including

(1)the level of common ownership,

(2)the extent to which managerial employees or board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an affiliated firm, and

(3)whether the operations of the affiliated firms are intertwined. ( *See Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 63 FR 12764, 12774 (March 16, 1998) and *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Collated Roofing Nails from Taiwan* , 62 FR 51427, 51436 (October 1, 1997).) To the extent that this provision does not conflict with the Department's application of separate rates and enforcement of the NME provision, section 773(c) of the Act, the Department will collapse two or more affiliated entities in a case involving an NME country if the facts of the case warrant such treatment. Furthermore, we note that the factors listed in 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2) are not exhaustive, and in the context of an NME investigation or administrative review, other factors unique to the relationship of business entities within the NME may lead the Department to determine that collapsing is either warranted or unwarranted, depending on the facts of the case. *See Hontex Enterprises, Inc.* v. *United States* , 248 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1342 (CIT 2003) (noting that the application of collapsing in the NME context may differ from the standard factors listed in the regulation). In summary, depending upon the facts of each investigation or administrative review, if there is evidence of significant potential for manipulation or control between or among producers which produce similar and/or identical merchandise, but may not all produce their product for sale to the United States, the Department may find such evidence sufficient to apply the collapsing criteria in an NME context in order to determine whether all or some of those affiliated producers should be treated as one entity ( *see Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of China, Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value* , 66 FR 22183 (May 3, 2001); *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 49632 (September 28, 2001) (“ *Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products* ”); and *Anshan Iron & Steel Co.* v. *United States* , Slip. Op. 03-83 at 32-33 (CIT 2003) (“ *Anshan* ”)). We also note that the rationale for collapsing, to prevent manipulation of price and/or production ( *see* 19 CFR 351.401(f)), applies to both producers and exporters, if the facts indicate that producers of like merchandise are affiliated as a result of their mutual relationship with an exporter. As noted above in the “Affiliation” section of this notice, we find a sufficient basis to conclude that COFCO, China National, COFCO Zhangzhou, Fujian Zishan, Xiamen Jiahua, and Yu Xing are affiliated through the common control of COFCO's parent company pursuant to section 771(33)(F) and

(G)of the Act. Three of these entities, COFCO Zhangzhou, Fujian, Zishan, and Yu Xing produced preserved mushrooms during the POR, which would be subject to the antidumping duty order if this merchandise entered the United States since all three producers have the facilities necessary to produce preserved mushrooms ( *see* factors of production data submitted by each company in COFCO's May 28, 2004, submission). Therefore, we find that the first and second collapsing criteria are met here because these producers at issue have production facilities for producing similar or identical products, such that no retooling at any of the three facilities is required in order to restructure manufacturing priorities. Finally, we find that the third collapsing criterion is met in this case because a significant potential for manipulation of price or production exists among COFCO and its affiliates for the following reasons. First, as explained above, there is a substantial level of common ownership between and among these companies. Second, a significant level of common control exists among these companies. Specifically, China National appointed COFCO's general manager and that this same individual was appointed by China National to be Xiamen Jiahua's executive director and serves as a board member at both COFCO Zhangzhou and Yu Xing ( *see* exhibits 7 of COFCO's May 28, 2004, submission). Moreover, Xiamen Jiahua's general manager is a vice chairman on Fujian Zishan's board of directors ( *see* also exhibit 7 of COFCO's May 28, 2004, submission). Moreover, Xiamen Jiahua, upon request, receives business projections from Fujian Zishan despite Fujian Zishan's claim that it does not maintain documentation which would establish the extent of Xiamen Jiahua's involvement in its activities ( *see* exhibit 2 of COFCO's January 21, 2005, submission). Third, we find that the operations of COFCO, COFCO Zhangzhou, Yu Xing, and Fujian Zishan, China National, and Xiamen Jiahua are sufficiently intertwined. Specifically, China National consolidates COFCO's and Xiamen Jiahua's financial data in its financial statements as well as issues a business plan which provides guidance to its affiliated companies ( *e.g.* , COFCO and Xiamen Jiahua) through the use of export targets based on the general category of product ( *i.e.* , foodstuffs) listed in the business plan ( *see* the public version of the Department's China National/COFCO July 6, 2004, verification report at 8 and 12 issued in *Mushrooms 4th AR Final Results* , which has been placed on the record of this review). Furthermore, there are significant sales transactions between and among the above-mentioned affiliates which serve as additional evidence that their operations are intertwined. For example, COFCO purchased mushroom products from all three of its affiliated producers during the POR of this review ( *see* page A-2 of COFCO's May 28, 2004, submission and exhibit 1 of COFCO's January 21, 2005, submission). However, COFCO decided only to export to the U.S. market mushroom products produced by its affiliate Yu Xing ( *see* exhibit 13 of COFCO's May 28, 2004, submission). In addition, even though Fujian Zishan could have exported all of its mushroom products ( *i.e.* , subject and non-subject mushroom products) independently to the United States, it chose not to export subject mushroom products to the U.S. market during the POR ( *see* page 13 of COFCO's September 9, 2004, submission). Similarly, Xiamen Jiahua was able to purchase mushroom products for export from both Fujian Zishan and COFCO Zhangzhou, but decided not to sell those products to COFCO for export to the United States. Rather, it chose to export these products on its own to third country markets if they were in-scope merchandise ( *see* page 12 of COFCO's September 9, 2004, submission). In addition, since the LTFV investigation, COFCO has shifted its source of supply among these affiliates. In the LTFV investigation of this proceeding, Fujian Zishan's factors data was initially used for purposes of determining COFCO's dumping margin ( *see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Market Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China* , 63 FR 72255, 72258 (December 31, 1998)). However, during the POR, COFCO only purchased its preserved mushrooms from its other affiliated producer, Yu Xing, for sale to the United States. Therefore, based on the above-mentioned reasons and the guidance of 19 CFR 351.401(f), we have preliminarily collapsed COFCO and its affiliates noted above because there is a significant potential for manipulation of production and/or sales decisions between these parties. Consequently, we have considered COFCO and the five affiliates mentioned above as a collapsed entity for purposes of determining whether or not the collapsed entity as a whole is entitled to a separate rate. This decision is specific to the facts presented in this review and based on several considerations, including the structure of the collapsed entity and the level of control between/among affiliates and the level of participation by each affiliate in the proceeding. Given the unique relationships which arise in NMEs between individual companies and the government, a separate rate will be granted to the collapsed entity only if the facts, taken as a whole, support such a finding ( *see* “Separate Rates” section below for further discussion). Separate Rates In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty deposit rate ( *i.e.* , a PRC-wide rate). One respondent in this review, Gerber, is wholly owned by companies located outside the PRC. Thus, for Gerber, because we have no evidence indicating that it is under the control of the PRC government, a separate rates analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government control. ( *See Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Fifth New Shipper Review* , 66 FR 44331 (August 23, 2001), which cites *Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Fifth New Shipper Review and Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 66 FR 29080 (May 29, 2001) (where the respondent was wholly owned by a U.S. registered company); *Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Fourth New Shipper Review and Rescission of Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 66 FR 27063 (May 16, 2001), which cites *Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Fourth New Shipper Review and Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 66 FR 1303, 1306 (January 8, 2001) (where the respondent was wholly owned by a company located in Hong Kong); and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic of China* , 64 FR 71104, 71105 (December 20, 1999) (where the respondent was wholly owned by persons located in Hong Kong)). Two respondents, Green Fresh and Guangxi Yulin, are joint ventures of PRC entities. Two respondents, Jiufa and XITIC, are joint-stock companies in the PRC. Another respondent, Guangxi Hengxian, is a limited liability company. The remaining respondent, COFCO, is owned by its affiliate China National, an exporter, which is owned by “all of the people.” COFCO also owns in part two preserved mushroom producers, COFCO Zhangzhou and Yu Xing. (Yu Xing has export rights but has never directly exported). In addition to COFCO, China National owns in part Xiamen Jiahua ( *i.e.* , a preserved mushroom exporter) and Xiamen Jiahua owns in part Fujian Zishan ( *i.e.* , another preserved mushroom producer which also has export rights). As discussed above in the “Collapsing” section of this notice, we have preliminarily considered COFCO and the five affiliates mentioned above as a collapsed entity. Thus, a separate-rates analysis is necessary to determine whether the export activities of each of above-mentioned respondents (including COFCO's collapsed entity as a whole) is independent from government control. ( *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China* , 61 FR 56570 (April 30, 1996) (“ *Bicycles* ”).) To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent in its export activities from government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department utilizes a test arising from the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”), and amplified in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ *Silicon Carbide* ”). Under the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over export activities. 1. De Jure Control Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of *de jure* absence of government control over exporter activities includes:

(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses;

(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and

(3)any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. COFCO's collapsed entity, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, and XITIC have placed on the administrative record the following documents to demonstrate absence of *de jure* control: the 1994 “Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China;” the “Company Law of the PRC,” effective as of July 1, 1994; and “The Enterprise Legal Person Registration Administrative Regulations,” promulgated on June 13, 1988. In other cases involving products from the PRC, respondents have submitted the following additional documents to demonstrate absence of *de jure* control, and the Department has placed these additional documents on the record as well: the “Law of the People's Republic of China on Industrial Enterprises Owned by the Whole People,” adopted on April 13, 1988 (“the Industrial Enterprises Law”); the 1990 “Regulation Governing Rural Collectively-Owned Enterprises of PRC”; and the 1992 “Regulations for Transformation of Operational Mechanisms of State-Owned Industrial Enterprises” (“Business Operation Provisions”). ( *See* February 28, 2005, memorandum to the file which places the above-referenced laws on the record of this proceeding segment.) As in prior cases, we have analyzed these laws and have found them to establish sufficiently an absence of *de jure* control of joint ventures and companies owned by “all of the people” absent proof on the record to the contrary. ( *See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995) (“ *Furfuryl Alcohol* ”), and *Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 29571 (June 5, 1995).) 2. De Facto Control As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. ( *See Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR at 22587, and *Furfuryl Alcohol* , 60 FR at 22544.) Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of *de facto* control is critical in determining whether the respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to *de facto* governmental control of its export functions:

(1)Whether the export prices are set by, or subject to the approval of, a governmental authority;

(2)whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements;

(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and

(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses. ( *See Silicon Carbide* , 59 at 22587 and *Furfuryl Alcohol* , 60 FR at 22545.) The affiliates in COFCO's collapsed entity (where applicable), Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, and XITIC each has asserted the following:

(1)Each establishes its own export prices;

(2)each negotiates contracts without guidance from any governmental entities or organizations;

(3)each makes its own personnel decisions; and

(4)each retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell its assets and to obtain loans. Additionally, each respondent's questionnaire responses indicate that its pricing during the POR does not suggest coordination among exporters. As a result, there is a sufficient basis to preliminarily determine that each respondent listed above (including COFCO's collapsed entity as a whole) has demonstrated a *de facto* absence of government control of its export functions and is entitled to a separate rate. Consequently, we have preliminarily determined that each of these respondents has met the criteria for the application of separate rates. Moreover, with respect to the affiliates included in COFCO's collapsed entity, we have assigned to all of them the same antidumping rate in these preliminary results for the above-mentioned reasons. Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by COFCO and its affiliates, Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, and XITIC to the United States were made at prices below normal value (“NV”), we compared each company's EPs or CEPs to NV, as described in the “Export Price,” “Constructed Export Price,” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. Export Price For COFCO, Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, and XITIC, we used EP methodology in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act for sales in which the subject merchandise was first sold prior to importation by the exporter outside the United States directly to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States and for sales in which CEP was not otherwise indicated. ( *See* “Facts Available—Green Fresh” section above for the Department's reason for resorting to facts available with respect to Green Fresh's reported CEP sales transactions). We made the following company-specific adjustments: A Green Fresh We calculated EP based on packed, CNF U.S. port prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling charges in the PRC, and international freight in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Because foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling fees were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based those charges on surrogate rates from India ( *see* “Surrogate Country” section below for further discussion of our surrogate-country selection). To value foreign inland trucking charges, we used Indian truck freight rates published in *Chemical Weekly* and distance information obtained from the following Web sites: *http://www.infreight.com* , and *http://www.sitaindia.com/Packages/CityDistance.php* . To value foreign brokerage and handling expenses, we relied on 1999-2000 public information reported in the LTFV investigation on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India ( *see Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India* , 67 FR 50406 (October 3, 2001)). For international freight ( *i.e.* , ocean freight), we used the reported expenses because Green Fresh reportedly used only market-economy freight carriers and paid for those expenses in a market-economy currency ( *see, e.g., Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 64 FR 9972, 9974 (March 1, 1999)). We also revised Green Fresh's reported per-unit packed weights used to derive PRC movement expenses ( *see* Green Fresh calculation memorandum). B. COFCO, Guangxi Yulin, and XITIC We calculated export price based on packed, FOB foreign port prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight, brokerage, and handling expenses in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Because foreign inland freight, brokerage, and handling expenses were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in Chinese currency ( *i.e.* , renminbi), we based these charges on surrogate rates from India. ( *See* discussion above for further details.) Although COFCO claims the Department should not deduct the foreign inland freight, brokerage, and handling expenses from its reported U.S. prices because its affiliated producer, Yu Xing and not COFCO, incurred these expenses, we have continued to deduct these expenses incurred by Yu Xing, from COFCO's reported U.S. prices. This deduction complies with the requirements of section 772(c) the Act that instructs the Department to deduct expenses from the U.S. gross unit price if a respondent or its affiliated producer incurs expenses associated with transporting to and/or clearing the subject merchandise through the country of exportation. *See Mushrooms 4th AR Final Results* , 69 FR at 54635, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10. COFCO claims that its affiliated producer, Yu Xing, did not incur an expense for the glass jars used to export the subject merchandise to the United States because COFCO's U.S. customers provided this item to Yu Xing free-of-charge. In the Department's supplemental questionnaire, we specifically requested COFCO to provide documentation ( *i.e.* , sample invoice, sales contract, and/or purchase agreement) to support its claim. Rather than providing any of the requested documentation in support of its claim that it incurred no expense for this item, COFCO provided only alleged (not sale) customer correspondence. Because COFCO has not sufficiently supported its claim that its U.S. customer contracted with a PRC jar producer, and that this producer had indeed delivered jars to Yu Xing in a certain quantity on a certain date, free-of-charge, the Department has not modified the U.S. price of those transactions to reflect the U.S. customer's reported expenditures for the preserved mushrooms and the jars. Because the details of the alleged jars transactions are virtually nonexistent on the record, and the link between these jars and the production of the subject merchandise has not been sufficiently established, the Department has preliminarily found that the record does not support such an adjustment to COFCO's reported U.S. prices. This preliminary decision on this matter is consistent with *Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Sixth Administrative Review and Preliminary Results and Final Partial Rescission of the Ninth New Shipper Review* , 69 FR 10402, 10407 (March 5, 2004). As the Department has an affirmative obligation to prevent the manipulation of its calculations through unsubstantiated claims on the record. It would not be reasonable at this time to grant COFCO the modification to its calculations without substantial evidence on the record to support its claim. Finally, we also revised COFCO's, Guangxi Yulin's and XITIC's reported per-unit packed weights used to derive PRC movement expenses ( *see* COFCO, Guangxi Yulin, and XITIC calculation memoranda). C. Gerber and Jiufa We calculated export price based on packed, CIF U.S. port prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight, brokerage, and handling expenses, international freight ( *i.e.* , ocean freight), U.S. brokerage and handling charges, U.S. import duties and fees (including harbor maintenance fees, merchandise processing fees), and U.S. demurrage charges in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. To value foreign inland train charges, we used price quotes published in the July 2001 *Reserve Bank of India Bulletin* . Because foreign inland trucking charges, brokerage, and handling expenses were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based these charges on surrogate rates from India. ( *See* discussion above for further details.) For international freight, we used the reported expenses because each respondent used a market-economy freight carrier and paid for the expenses in a market-economy currency. We also revised the Gerber's and Jiufa's reported per-unit packed weights used to derive PRC movement expenses ( *see* Gerber and Jiufa calculation memoranda). Constructed Export Price For Guangxi Hengxian we calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act because the U.S. sale was made for the account of Guangxi Hengxian by its subsidiary in the United States, Sino-Trend, Inc. (“Sino-Trend”), to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We based CEP on a packed, ex-U.S. port prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling charges in the PRC, international freight ( *i.e.* , ocean freight), U.S. brokerage and handling charges, U.S. import duties and fees (including harbor maintenance fees, merchandise processing fees), and U.S. demurrage charges. As all foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling expenses were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we valued these services using the Indian surrogate values discussed above. For international freight, we used the reported expenses because the respondent used a market-economy freight carrier and paid for the expenses in a market-economy currency ( *see* Guangxi Hengxian calculation memorandum for further discussion). In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses (credit expenses), indirect selling expenses, and inventory carrying expenses incurred in the United States. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using a factors-of-production methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME country and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department will base NV on the factors of production because the presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under its normal methodologies. For purposes of calculating NV, we valued the PRC factors of production in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. Factors of production include, but are not limited to, hours of labor required, quantities of raw materials employed, amounts of energy and other utilities consumed, and representative capital costs, including depreciation. *See* Section 773(c)(3) of the Act. In examining surrogate values, we selected, where possible, the publicly available value which was an average non-export value, representative of a range of prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. *See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China,* 69 FR 75294, 75300 (December 16, 2004) ( *“Chlorinated Isocyanurates”* ). We used the usage rates reported by the respondents for materials, energy, labor, by-products, and packing. * See Factor Valuation Memo * for a more detailed explanation of the methodology used in calculating various surrogate values. Pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the Department used facts otherwise available to value certain factors of production for which Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Yulin and Yu Xing ( *i.e.,* COFCO's affiliated producer) failed to provide consumption data in response to supplemental questionnaires issued by the Department to these companies. Specifically, Green Fresh failed to provide, as requested, a consumption factor for the water it used to grow fresh mushrooms. Although this respondent claimed it obtained the water free of charge from a nearby river and was unable to determine the amount of water it used to grow its fresh mushrooms, the Department was clear in its supplemental questionnaires that the respondent is required to report the requested information. *See Pacific Giant* v. *United States,* 223 F. Supp. 2nd 1336, 1346 (CIT 2002) (affirming the Department's valuation of water). Green Fresh did not have to provide an exact factor, but like the other respondents, it could have provided a theoretical usage amount for this input ( *i.e.,* a calculated factor based on the land used to grow fresh mushrooms, the amount of water used per hectare, etc.). In addition, although this respondent argues that valuing this factor would result in double counting its costs associated with water usage in the fresh mushroom production process if the Department also valued the electricity it used to pump the water from the nearby river, we find that Green Fresh did not provide sufficient evidence in its questionnaire responses to demonstrate that its reported electricity usage for growing fresh mushrooms was only limited to water pumping activities. Such information is necessary for determining the normal value of Green Fresh's reported U.S. sales. Thus, with respect to this factor, we have determined that Green Fresh did not act to the best of its ability in providing us with the requested information. Accordingly, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, as adverse facts available, the Department has used the highest per-unit water factor for fresh mushroom production (based on the per-unit consumption data for this input reported by the other respondents in this review) for purposes of valuing the costs associated with this input utilized by Green Fresh. Section 773(c)(3) of the Act states that “the factors of production utilized in producing merchandise include, but are not limited to the quantities of raw materials employed.” Therefore, the Department is required under the Act to value all inputs (including inputs for which the respondent claims were provided to it purportedly free of charge). As explained in the “Export Price” section above, COFCO did not sufficiently support its claim that its U.S. customer provided Yu Xing the jars it used free-of-charge. For this reason, we have not adjusted COFCO's reported U.S. prices to include the value of jars for certain sales of preserved mushrooms in these preliminary results. Despite the fact that we have not made the above-referenced adjustment to COFCO's U.S. prices reported for sales of the subject merchandise contained in jars, section 773(c)(3) of the Act nevertheless requires the Department to value each factor of production used to produce the subject merchandise. Accordingly, for these preliminary results, the Department has valued the jar usage amounts reported by Yu Xing by using a surrogate value ( *see Factor Valuation Memo* ). As for Gerber, Guangxi Yulin, and Yu Xing ( *i.e.,* COFCO's affiliated producer), these respondents failed to provide, as requested, a consumption factor for the soil which they used to grow fresh mushrooms. Although these respondents claimed that they did not purchase the soil used to grow fresh mushrooms and do not maintain consumption records for this input, we find again, the respondents could have provided a theoretical usage amount for this input just as many respondents did with respect to water, based on the land used to grow fresh mushrooms, height of the top soil used in mushroom sheds, and other factors. Despite these respondents' claims that the soil should not be treated as a direct material because this input is not incorporated in the intermediate product ( *i.e.,* fresh mushrooms), we consider soil an integral part of the fresh mushroom process because without this input, the fresh mushrooms cannot be produced. This information is necessary for determining the normal value of COFCO's, Gerber's, and Guangxi Yulin's reported U.S. sales. We have determined pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act that companies did not act to the best of their ability in providing the factor data for this input. Therefore, as adverse facts available, the Department has used the highest per-unit soil factor (based on the per-unit consumption data for this input reported by the other respondents in this review) for purposes of valuing the costs associated with this input utilized by Gerber, Guangxi Yulin, and Yu Xing ( *i.e.,* COFCO's affiliated producer). *See* company-specific calculation memoranda for further discussion. With respect to other factors data submitted by COFCO's affiliated producer, Fujian Zishan, and Guangxi Hengxian, we made adjustments to their submitted data which we deemed were necessary based on comments submitted by the petitioner in this review ( *see* COFCO and Guangxi Hengxian calculation memoranda for further discussion). Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on the factors of production reported by the respondents for the POR. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by publicly available Indian surrogate values (except where noted below). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. *See Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 63 FR 12442 (March 13, 1998). As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory, where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in *Sigma Corp.* v. *United States,* 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Due to the extensive number of surrogate values it was necessary to assign in this investigation, we present a discussion of the main factors. For a detailed description of all surrogate values used for respondents, *see Factor Valuation Memo.* Except where discussed below, we valued raw material inputs using February 2003-January 2004 weighted-average Indian import values derived from the *World Trade Atlas* online ( *“WTA”* ) ( *see also Factor Valuation Memo* ). The Indian import statistics we obtained from the *WTA* were published by the DGCI&S, Ministry of Commerce of India, which were reported in rupees and are contemporaneous with the POR. Indian surrogate values denominated in foreign currencies were converted to U.S. dollars using the applicable average exchange rate for India for the POR. The average exchange rate was based on exchange rate data from the Department's Web site. Where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POR with which to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values for inflation using Indian wholesale price indices (“WPIs”) as published in the International Monetary Fund's *International Financial Statistics. See Factor Valuation Memo.* Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate values, we have disregarded prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that there is reason to believe or suspect all exports to all markets from these countries are subsidized. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From The People's Republic,* 61 FR 66255 (February 12, 1996), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 1. Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an “unspecified” country were excluded from the average value, because the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an NME or a country with general export subsidies. Surrogate Valuations To value fresh mushrooms and rice straw, we used an April 2002-March 2003 average price based on purchase data contained in the 2003-2004 financial report of Premier Explosives Ltd. (“Premier”). *See Mushrooms 4th AR Final Results,* 69 FR at 54635, and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 12. To value cow manure and general and/or wheat straw, we used an average price based on data contained in the 2003-2004 financial reports of Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd. (“Agro Dutch”) and Flex Foods Ltd. (“Flex Foods”) ( *i.e.,* two Indian producers of the subject merchandise) because we could not obtain any other Indian surrogate values for these inputs. To value spawn and chicken manure, we used an average price based on data contained in the 2003-2004 financial reports of Agro Dutch, Flex Foods Ltd., and Premier. We did not use the spawn value data obtained from the National Research Center for Mushroom (which was established by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research), because data on the record indicates that this research center is fully financed by the Indian government, and its spawn price is not determined by market forces. For those respondents which used mother spawn, we also used the average spawn price to value mother spawn from Agro Dutch, Flex Foods, and Premier, because we were unable to obtain publicly available information which contained a price for mother spawn. To value rice straw, we used price data contained in Premier's 2003-2004 financial report because no such data was available from the other financial reports on the record and we could not obtain any other Indian surrogate values for this input. To value wheat, we used price data contained in Flex Foods' 2003-2004 financial report because no such data was available from the other financial reports on the record and we could not obtain any other Indian surrogate values for this input. To value super phosphate, we used price data contained in Flex Foods' 2002-2003 financial report because no such data was available from the other financial reports on the record and we could not obtain any other Indian surrogate values for this input. To value soil, we used July 2003 price data from two U.S. periodicals, *Mt. Scott Fuel* and *Interval Compost,* rather the data contained in the Indian Government's Central Public Works Department publication, because the excerpt from this publication only appears to provide a rate for services ( *e.g.,* supplying and stacking earth at site) rather than a surrogate value for soil. Moreover, we did not use the value for “pressed mud” from Flex Foods” 2003-2004 financial report to value this input, because given the magnitude of that value, we cannot conclude that it is representative of the value for soil used to grow mushrooms versus other applications ( *e.g.,* construction of sheds). *See Mushrooms 4th AR Final Results,* 69 FR at 54635, and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 13. For disodium stannous citrate, we used a February 2003-January 2004 average import value for sodium citrate from the *World Trade Atlas* because we were unable to obtain a more specific value for this input. To value monosodium glutamate, we used a January 2003-December 2003 weighted-average value based on imports of these inputs into the Indonesia from *WTA,* because we had reason to believe or suspect that a significant amount of imports of this input into India during the POR were subsidized. For those respondents which only purchased tin cans used in the production of preserved mushrooms during the POR, we valued tin cans using the can-purchase-specific price data from the May 21, 2001, public version response submitted by Agro Dutch in the 2nd antidumping duty administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India, and derived per-unit, can-size-specific prices using the petitioner's methodology contained in its August 16, 2004, PAI submission. For those respondents ( *i.e.,* COFCO) which both purchased and produced tin cans during the POR we valued tin cans using the actual price data from the supplemental questionnaire response submitted by Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd. (“Agro Dutch”) in the 3rd antidumping duty administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India. Although Jiufa reported its affiliate's factors used to produce cans, we did not value the factors it reported for producing cans because a collapsing analysis pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f) was not warranted in this instance. Instead, we valued this company's reported can factor. To value water, we used the water tariff rate for the greater Municipality of Mumbai, India (“Mumbai Municipality”), that was formerly available on the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai's Web site and was used in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 34130 (June 18, 2004). *See also http://www.mcgm.gov.in/Stat%20&%20Fig/Revenue.htm.* The latest available data covers the period from February 2001 through November 2002. The cost of water during this period ranged from 1.0 to 35.00 Rs/1,000 liters (1,000 liters of water is equivalent to 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of water is equivalent to 1 metric ton of water). We used the highest value from the water price range data from the Mumbai Municipality. We valued electricity using the 2000 total average price per kilowatt hour for “Electricity for Industry” as reported in the International Energy Agency's (“IEA” 's) publication, *Energy Prices and Taxes, Fourth Quarter, 2003.* We added an amount for loading and additional transportation charges associated with delivering coal to the factory based on June 1999 Indian price data contained in the periodical *Business Line.* To value diesel fuel, we used 2002 Indian price data from IEA's *Key World Energy Statistics.* To value steam, we used January-June 1999 Indian price data from *PR Newswire Association Inc.* Section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. Therefore, to value the labor input, the Department used the regression-based wage rate for the PRC published by Import Administration on our website. The source of the wage rate data is the *Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002* , published by the International Labour Office (“ILO”), (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. See the Import Administration Web site: *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/02wages/02wages.html.* Although Guangxi Hengxian and Juifa question the Department's labor rate calculation methodology in using per-capita Gross National Income (“GNI”) and wage-rate information available from the ILO web site for certain countries in its regression analysis, we have continued to employ our long-established methodology for determining the wage rate for the PRC. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 67313 (November 17, 2004), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 23. Certain respondents ( *e.g.* , COFCO, Guangxi Yulin) reported certain by-products ( *i.e.* , recovered tin plate, recovered copper wire, and mushroom scrap) in producing the subject merchandise which each either re-sold or re-used to produce the subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, in those instances where the respondent provided documentation to support its by-product claim and we obtained appropriate surrogate values for those by-products, we allowed a recovery/by-product credit. Because we could not obtain an appropriate surrogate value for mushroom scrap, we did not value this by-product in the preliminary results. Our treatment of by-products in this proceeding is in accordance with the Department's practice. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 49632 (September 28, 2001), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 3. To value packing materials, we used February 2003-January 2004 weighted-average Indian import values derived from *WTA.* Although Jiufa reported its affiliate's factors used to produce cartons, we did not value the factors it reported for producing cartons because a collapsing analysis pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f) was not warranted in this instance. Instead, we valued this company's reported carton factor. To value PRC inland freight for inputs shipped by truck, we used Indian freight rates published in the October 2003-January 2004 issues of *Chemical Weekly* and obtained distances between cities from the following Web sites: *http://www.infreight.com* and *http://www.sitaindia.com/Packages/CityDistance.php.* To value PRC inland freight for inputs shipped by train, we used price quotes published in the July 2001 *Reserve Bank of India Bulletin.* To value factory overhead (“FOH”) and selling, general & administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, and profit, we used data from the 2003-2004 financial reports of Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd. (“Agro Dutch”) and Flex Foods Ltd. (“Flex Foods”). These Indian companies are producers of the subject merchandise based on data contained in each Indian company's financial reports. We did not use the 2003-2004 financial data obtained for Premier to value factory overhead, SG&A or profit, because although this company produces the subject merchandise, its operations, unlike Agro Dutch and Flex Foods, are not limited to the production of mushrooms and other similar agricultural products. *See Mushrooms 4th AR Final Results* , 69 FR at 54635, and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 8. Where appropriate, we did not include in the surrogate overhead and SG&A calculations the excise duty amount listed in the financial reports. We made certain adjustments to the ratios calculated as a result of reclassifying certain expenses contained in the financial reports. For a further discussion of the adjustments made, *see* the *Preliminary Results Valuation Memorandum.* Verification In accordance with section 782(i)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.307, the Department will conduct a complete and thorough verification of a number of respondents in this review, including, but not limited to, Gerber, Green Fresh (with respect to its EP sales and factors of production data used in our analysis), Jiufa, and XITIC. With respect to Gerber and Green Fresh, we will ascertain whether they continued to engage in practices which resulted in the application of adverse facts available in the prior two administrative reviews. Preliminary Results of the Review We preliminarily find that the following margins exist for the following exporters under review during the period February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the PRC Mandatory Respondents Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-average margin (percent) China Processed Food Import & Export Company 38.25 Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd 0.00 Green Fresh Foods (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd 153.93 Guangxi Hengxian Pro-Light Foods, Inc 49.98 Guangxi Yulin Oriental Food Co., Ltd 8.92 Shandong Jiufa Edible Fungus Corporation Ltd 65.57 Xiamen International Trade & Industrial Co., Ltd 8.69 PRC-Wide Rate 198.63 We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. If requested, a hearing will be held on May 16, 2005. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1)The party's name, address, and telephone number;

(2)the number of participants; and

(3)a list of issues to be discussed. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than May 2, 2005, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due not later than May 9, 2005, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument

(1)a statement of the issue and

(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this review directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer- or customer-specific *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. For certain respondents for which we calculated a margin, we do not have the actual entered value because they are either not the importers of record for the subject merchandise or were unable to obtain the entered value data for their reported sales from the importer of record. For these respondents, we intend to calculate individual customer-specific assessment rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all of the U.S. sales examined and dividing that amount by the total quantity of the sales examined. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent), in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will calculate customer-specific ad valorem ratios based on export prices. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer or customer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above *de minimis* . For entries of the subject merchandise during the POR from companies not subject to these reviews, we will instruct CBP to liquidate them at the cash deposit rate in effect at the time of entry. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of the administrative review for all shipments of certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rates for COFCO, Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, and XITIC, will be the rates determined in the final results of review (except that if a rate is *de minimis* , *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent, no cash deposit will be required);

(2)the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding (which were not reviewed in this segment of the proceeding) will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding ( *e.g.* , Guangxi Yizhou, Minhui, Nanning Runchao, Primera Harvest, Raoping Xingyu and its affiliate Raoping Yucun, Shenxian Dongxing, Shenzhen Qunxingyuan, Superlucky, Tak Fat and its affiliate Mei Wei, and Zhongjia);

(3)the cash deposit rate for the PRC NME entity (including Dingyuan, Shantou Hongda, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang) will continue to be 198.63 percent; and

(4)the cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice 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 Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review and notice is in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Dated: February 28, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-925 Filed 3-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-810] Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar From India AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India with respect to Chandan Steel Ltd. This review covers sales of stainless steel bar from India to the United States during the period February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004. We have preliminarily found that sales have been made below normal value by Chandan Steel Ltd. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. We are also rescinding this administrative review with respect to Ferro Alloys Corp., Ltd.; Isibars Ltd.; Mukand, Ltd.; Venus Wire Industries Ltd; and the Viraj Group, Ltd. (Viraj Alloys, Ltd.; Viraj Forgings, Ltd.; and Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd.). DATES: *Effective Date:* March 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Brown or Julie Santoboni, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-4987 and

(202)482-4194, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 3, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice in the **Federal Register** providing opportunity for interested parties to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar

(SSB)from India. *See Notice of Opportunity to Request Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation,* 69 FR 5125 (February 3, 2004). The Department received requests for an administrative review from Chandan Steel Ltd. (Chandan); Ferro Alloys Corp., Ltd. (FACOR); Isibars Ltd. (Isibars); Mukand, Ltd. (Mukand); Venus Wire Industries Limited (Venus); and Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd. and Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd. (collectively referred to as the Viraj Group) on February 27, 2004. The Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSB from India for the above-named companies on March 26, 2004. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part,* 69 FR 15788 (March 26, 2004). We issued questionnaires to each of these companies on March 30, 2004. On April 15, 2004, the petitioners ( *i.e.* , Carpenter Technology Corp., Crucible Specialty Metals Division of Crucible Materials Corp., Electralloy Corp., Slater Steels Corp., Empire Specialty Steel and the United Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC)) requested that the Department conduct a verification of all the respondents. Venus, Mukand, FACOR, Isibars, and the Viraj Group withdrew their requests for an administrative review on April 19, 2004, and May 3, 2004. For further discussion, see the “Partial Rescission of Review” section of this notice, below. On May 3, 2004, we received a response to section A of the Department's questionnaire from Chandan. Chandan reported that it only had export sales of stainless steel bright bar (SSBB), and that its home market sales of stainless steel hot-rolled bar

(SSHR)were less than 5 percent of the volume of its U.S. sales of SSBB. In addition, Chandan reported preliminary data on SSB sales made to its largest third-country markets. On May 18, 2004, Chandan submitted a response to sections B and C of the Department's questionnaire, containing complete sales databases for Chandan's largest third-country markets: Australia, Belgium, and Brazil. On June 14, 2004, the petitioners filed comments on Chandan's sections A-C responses, and recommended that the Department select Belgium as the third-country comparison market for normal value (NV), alleging that Chandan made more sales to Belgium than to Australia of merchandise identical to merchandise it sold in the United States. On June 29, 2004, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to Chandan requesting the quantity and value of its home market sales of SSBB and SSHR, and the certifications required by 19 CFR 351.303(g). We received Chandan's response on July 6, 2004. In that response, Chandan reported that its home market sales of SSHR were of defective merchandise and that it did not sell defective merchandise in its export markets. On July 12, 2004, the Department issued an additional supplemental questionnaire requesting that Chandan revise its home market data and report its home market sales of SSHR. We received Chandan's revised home market sales data on July 27, 2004. On August 11, 2004, in response to Chandan's revised home market data, the petitioners alleged that Chandan's home market sales of SSHR were unsuitable for comparison purposes because the bar was defective and fundamentally different from the bar sold in the United States. As a result, the petitioners reiterated their recommendation that Belgium be selected as the comparison market. Simultaneously, they made a timely allegation that Chandan's third-country sales were made below the cost of production (COP). On August 17, 2004, Chandan requested that the Department exclude certain stainless steel flat-bars from the antidumping duty order. The petitioners submitted comments in opposition to Chandan's scope exclusion request on August 19, 2004. On September 24, 2004 we selected Australia as the third-country comparison market after determining that Chandan's home market was not viable. *See* the September 24, 2004, memorandum to Susan Kuhbach from Team entitled, “ *Selection of Comparison Market for Chandan” (Comparison Market Memo* ). We chose Australia because it was the largest market by volume and the composition of merchandise sold to Australia provided a greater number of similar product matches for sales to the United States. Also, on September 24, 2004, the Department found that, because of the complexity of assessing home market viability, choosing the appropriate third-country market, and the late filing of a cost allegation by the petitioners, it was not practicable to complete this review within the time period prescribed. Accordingly, we extended the time limit for completing the preliminary results of this review to no later than February 28, 2005, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). *See Stainless Steel Bar from India; Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 69 FR 57265 (September 24, 2004). We found that the petitioners' allegation of sales below cost provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that Chandan's comparison market sales were made at prices below COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. Consequently, on October 5, 2004, we initiated a COP investigation of Chandan's comparison market sales during the period of review (POR). *See* the October 5, 2004 memorandum to Susan Kuhbach from Team entitled, “ *Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Bar from India: Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Chandan Steel, Ltd.* ” Accordingly, we notified Chandan that it must respond to section D of the antidumping duty questionnaire. On October 1, 2004, we issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to Chandan addressing issues raised by sections A-C of its response. We received Chandan's supplemental A-C and section D questionnaire responses on November 12, 2004. Chandan's November 12, 2004 response was severely deficient; as a result, we requested a revised submission that Chandan submitted on November 16, 2004. In the November 16, 2004 submission, the law firm that had been certifying and filing Chandan's submissions stated that it did not represent Chandan in the current administrative review. On November 22, 2004, we requested clarification of the relationship between the law firm and Chandan in the current proceeding. *See* November 22, 2004 letter from Ryan Langan, Acting Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 1 to Mr. Peter Koenig. Subsequently, we determined that the law firm had failed to file a formal notice of appearance and an official request for adminsitrative protective order

(APO)access. The Department afforded the law firm an opportunity to make such filings, but the Department received no response. Therefore, the Department ceased all correspondence with the law firm and corresponded directly with Chandan. The Department issued additional supplemental questionnaires in December 2004 and January 2005. We received responses between December 2004 and February 2005. On January 28, 2005, the petitioners commented on Chandan's January 5, 2005, response. In those comments, the petitioners noted the following problems:

(1)Failure to provide adequate cost information on a finish-specific basis;

(2)failure to provide clear information about Chandan's affiliate in the United States, Chandan USA; and

(3)failure to provide importer of record and entered value information. The petitioners argued that, due to these deficiencies, the Department should either use partial facts available, adverse facts available or the Belgian sales as the comparison market values. On February 18, 2005, we received comments from the petitioners regarding Chandan's February response. Scope of the Order Imports covered by the order of shipments of SSB. SSB means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut-to-length flat-rolled products ( *i.e.* , cut-to-length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), wire ( *i.e.* , cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes, and sections. The SSB subject to these reviews is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Scope Exclusion On August 9, 2004, we received a scope exclusion request from Chandan. In that request, Chandan sought to exclude certain stainless steel flat-bars from the scope. Specifically, Chandan sought to exclude stainless steel hot rolled flat-bars with sizes ranging from 3/4 ″ x 1/8 ″ to 8″ x 3″ (19.05 mm x 3.18 mm to 203.20 mm x 76.20 mm), with a uniform solid cross section the length of the bar in rectangular shape. Chandan explained that the bars were not manufactured in the United States and that the stainless steel flat-bar applications were different from those of stainless steel bar. On August 19, 2004, the petitioners requested that the Department reject Chandan's exclusion request because Chandan failed to prove the necessary elements for a scope exclusion ruling as outlined in 19 CFR 351.225(c). Furthermore, the petitioners provided evidence from domestic producers of stainless steel hot rolled flat-bars that such bars are produced in the United States, in direct contradiction to Chandan's claims. On February 11, 2005, we returned Chandan's scope exclusion request, with instructions to refile, because it failed to follow the scope exclusion requirements outlined in section 351.225(c) of the Department's regulations. *See* February 11, 2005, letter from Ryan Langan, Acting Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 1 to Chandan Steel Ltd., in c/o Mr. Pravin Jain. Specifically, Chandan failed to provide, as required by section 351.225(c)(1) of the Department's regulations, a detailed description of the product, its current HTSUS numbers and technical uses, citations to any applicable statutory authority, and factual information supporting the request. Period of Review The period of review is February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004. Partial Rescission of Review As noted above in the “Background” section of this notice, Venus, Mukand, FACOR, Isibars, and the Viraj Group withdrew their requests for an administrative review on April 19, 2004, and May 3, 2004. Because the petitioners did not request an administrative review for any of these companies and the requests to withdraw were made within the time limit specified under 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this administrative review as it pertains to these companies. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of SSB by Chandan to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared export price

(EP)and constructed export price (CEP), as appropriate, to the NV, as described in the “Export Price,” “Constructed Export Price,” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs and CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section below. Product Comparisons When making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by Chandan as described in the “Scope of the Order” to be the foreign like product. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by Chandan in the following order: general type of finish, grade, remelting process, type of final finishing operation, shape, and size. Export Price and Constructed Export Price Chandan reported that all of its sales of SSB to the United States during the POR were EP sales. According to Chandan, these sales were made to unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to the date of importation. However, the record is unclear with respect to Chandan's U.S. sales distribution processes to these companies, the identity of all the companies involved, and the relationship, if any, to Chandan. The record does indicate, however, that Chandan made certain U.S. sales through an affiliate in the United States, *i.e.* , Chandan USA, to unaffiliated customers. In addition, Chandan reported extra expenses for the sales made through Chandan USA. These extra expenses appear to be incurred by an unaffiliated party in the United States and are related to that party's activities in the United States on behalf of Chandan. According to information provided by Chandan, the unaffiliated party is later reimbursed for those extra expenses by Chandan through Chandan USA. For these preliminary results, we are treating sales through Chandan's U.S. affiliate as CEP sales. As noted above, Chandan has an affiliated entity (Chandan USA) in the United States that appears to be the entity that makes the first sale in the United States to an unaffiliated customer, and Chandan appears to incur expenses that are related to economic activity in the United States. We intend to seek further information about these sales prior to our final results of review. Export Price We calculated EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, for those sales Chandan made directly to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to the date of importation. We based EP on packed, CFR prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the EP starting price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight from the plant/warehouse to the port of export, marine insurance, and international freight in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act. Constructed Export Price As stated above, we treated those sales made through Chandan's U.S. affiliate, Chandan USA, as CEP sales. We calculated CEP in accordance with 772(b) of the Act, based on packed, CIF and CFR prices to Chandan's unaffiliated customers in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight from the plant/warehouse to the port of export, marine insurance, and international freight. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activity in the United States including: commissions, credit expenses, and extra expenses incurred in the United States. Additionally, we made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Normal Value Selection of Comparison Market Because Chandan's home market sales were of defective merchandise, we based NV on sales to one of Chandan's third country markets. *See Comparison Market Memo.* In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.404, we selected Australia as the third-country comparison market. Citing 19 CFR 351.404(e)(1), the petitioners have argued that Belgium, not Australia, is the most appropriate third-country comparison market. The petitioners claim that the Department erred in selecting Australia as the third-country comparison market when it determined the number of potential matches in the Australian market by examining size ranges, rather than the number of matches of identical size. The petitioners assert that using a specific size would result in a higher percentage of identical matches in Belgium. Furthermore, the petitioners argue that the Department must calculate Chandan's NV using identical model matches because, when looking at the most recent third-country databases supplied by Chandan, there still are significant differences regarding the product characteristics. The petitioners state that, assuming that size ranges are an adequate measure for product matching, there are significantly more similar sales matches based on grade, shape, finish, and diameter between sales to the United States and to Belgium than there are between sales to the United States and sales to Australia or Brazil. We considered all the criteria under 19 CFR 351.404(e) in determining the appropriate third-country comparison market including:

(1)Whether the foreign like product exported to a particular third country is more similar to the subject merchandise exported to the United States than is the foreign like product exported to other third countries;

(2)whether the volume of sales to a particular third country is larger than the volume of sales to other third countries; and

(3)other factors as the Secretary considers appropriate. We found that Australia is Chandan's largest third-country market by volume. When we compared the sales made to the United States to those made to the third-country markets reported by Chandan, we were able to identify a greater number of similar matches of U.S. sales to Australian sales, than to Belgian sales. This is the same approach the Department uses in its margin analysis. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.404(e), we have chosen Australia as the appropriate third-country market. Cost of Production As stated above in the “Background” section of this notice, the petitioners submitted a below-cost allegation. We found that the petitioners' allegation provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that Chandan's third-country sales were made at prices below the COP, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. *See* the October 5, 2004 memorandum from Team to Susan Kuhbach entitled “ *Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Chandan Steel, Ltd.* ” As a result, we initiated an investigation to determine whether Chandan made comparison market sales during the POR at prices below their COPs. 1. Calculation of COP In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative expenses (G&A), and interest expenses. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have relied on the COP data submitted by Chandan. Before the final results, we intend to seek additional information from Chandan about its finishing costs. 2. Test of Comparison Market Prices On a product-specific basis, we compared the weighted-average COP to the comparison market sales of the foreign like product during the POR, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether sales had been made at prices below the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we used COPs exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The comparison market prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, commissions, indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and

(B)of the Act, whether such sales were made:

(1)Within an extended period of time in substantial quantities; and

(2)at prices which did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. 3. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we disregard those sales of that product, because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales represent “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) and

(C)of the Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales were made at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) and (2)(D) of the Act. We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent of Chandan's comparison market sales were at prices less than the COP. In addition, such sales were made within an extended period of time and did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we excluded these sales and used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for determining NV in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i), to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade

(LOT)as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. *Id.; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa,* 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997) ( *Plate from South Africa* ). In order to determine whether the comparison 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), including selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales, ( *i.e.* , NV based on either home market or third country prices 1 ) we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling expenses reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. *See Micron Technology, Inc.* v. *United States,* 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 1 Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A and profit for CV, where possible. When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if an NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability ( *i.e.* , no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. *See Plate from South Africa,* 62 FR at 61733. Chandan reported one level of trade in both U.S. and third-country markets. We found no difference between the relevant selling activities of the CEP LOT and the third-country LOT. In addition, we found that the only difference in selling activities between the third-country LOT and the EP LOT was that there were commissions incurred on some U.S. sales but none on third-country sales. This difference was not substantial. Therefore, we find that selling activities were performed at the same relative level of intensity in both markets, and that the EP and CEP levels of trade were the same as the third-country LOT. Accordingly, all sales comparisons are at the same LOT for Chandan and an adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) is not warranted. Calculation of Normal Value Price to Price Comparisons We based NV on packed FOB, CIF, and CFR prices to Chandan's third-country unaffiliated customers. We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for movement expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, including: Foreign inland freight from the plant/warehouse to the port of export, marine insurance, and international freight. We also reduced the starting price for comparison market packing costs incurred on the comparison market sales, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(i), and increased NV to include U.S. packing expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A). We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit expenses, where appropriate, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. In addition, we made an adjustment to NV to account for commissions paid on some U.S. sales but not on sales in the third country, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e). As the offset for U.S. commissions, we used third-county indirect selling expenses to the extent of the lesser of the commission or the indirect selling expenses. In addition, we made adjustments to NV, where appropriate, for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify all information to be used in making our final results. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily find the following weighted-average dumping margin: Manufacturer/producer/exporter Weighted-average margin percentage Chandan Steel Ltd 10.28 The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date rebuttal briefs are filed. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Department will issue the final results of the administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rate Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. According to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for those sales with a reported entered value, we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Chandan did not to report entered value for the importers it identified. Therefore, to estimate entered value, we deducted from gross unit price international freight, marine insurance, and document clearing expenses. If, at the final results, we find that determining assessment rates on an *ad valorem* basis is not appropriate, we will do so on a per unit assessment basis. Cash Deposit Requirements To calculate the cash deposit rate for each producer and/or exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that company's sales during the review period. Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of SSB from India, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, *de minimis* within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106, the cash deposit will be zero;

(2)for previously 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 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

(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 12.45 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from India,* 59 FR 66915, 66921 (Dec. 28, 1994). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. This notice 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 Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 28, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary, Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-924 Filed 3-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-813] Stainless Steel Butt Weld Pipe Fittings From Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request by Sungkwang Bend Company Ltd., (SKBC), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order of certain stainless steel butt weld pipe fittings from Korea. The review covers one firm, SKBC. The period of review

(POR)is February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004. We preliminarily determine that sales of stainless steel butt weld pipe fittings from Korea have been made below the normal value

(NV)for SKBC. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties based on the difference 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 argument in these proceedings 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. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney, or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 3520, Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-4475 or

(202)482-0649. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 23, 1993, the Department published the antidumping duty order on stainless steel butt weld pipe fittings from Korea. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel Butt Weld Pipe Fittings from Korea,* 58 FR 11029. On February 27, 2004, SKBC requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel butt weld pipe fittings from Korea in response to the Department's notice of opportunity to request a review published in the **Federal Register** . The Department initiated the review for SKBC on March 26, 2004. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part,* 69 FR 15788 (March 26, 2004). On April 7, 2004, the Department issued sections A, B, and C of the antidumping questionnaire to SKBC. SKBC filed its response to section A of our questionnaire on May 12, 2004. On May 23, 2004, SKBC filed its response to sections B and C of our questionnaire. The Department issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to SKBC on August 7, 2004. SKBC filed its response to our August 7, 2004, questionnaire on September 2, 2004. On August 3, 2004, the Department extended the time limit for issuance of the preliminary results of the administrative review to February 28, 2005. *See Stainless Steel Butt Weld Pipe Fittings from Korea; Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Administrative Review,* 69 FR 46516 (August 3, 2004). Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order The products covered by this order are certain welded stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings (pipe fittings), whether finished or unfinished, under 14 inches in inside diameter. Pipe fittings are used to connect pipe sections in piping systems where conditions require welded connections. The subject merchandise can be used where one or more of the following conditions is a factor in designing the piping system:

(1)Corrosion of the piping system will occur if material other than stainless steel is used;

(2)contamination of the material in the system by the system itself must be prevented;

(3)high temperatures are present;

(4)extreme low temperatures are present;

(5)high pressures are contained within the system. Pipe fittings come in a variety of shapes, and the following five are the most basic: “elbows,” “tees,” “reducers,” “stub ends,” and “caps.” The edges of finished fittings are beveled. Threaded, grooved, and bolted fittings are excluded from this review. The pipe fittings subject to this review are classifiable under subheading 7307.23.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we verified sales information provided by SKBC, using standard verification procedures such as the examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the public and proprietary versions of our verification report, which is on file in the Central Records Unit

(CRU)in room B-099 of the main Department building. *See* SKBC Sales Verification Report, dated February 7, 2005 (Verification Report). Product Comparison In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings covered by the “Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order” section of this notice, *supra,* which were produced and sold by SKBC in the home market during the POR to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings. We relied on five characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product: type, grade, seam, size, and schedule. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to the U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the physical characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the antidumping questionnaire. We performed a difference in merchandise (DIFMER) test to ensure that all comparison matches had no more than a 20% difference in variable cost of manufacture to the merchandise sold in the United States. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home market at the same level of trade

(LOT)as EP or the CEP. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the home market or, when NV is based on constructed value (CV), that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to an affiliated importer after the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Act. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP, 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 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 an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 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 Act (the CEP-offset provision). *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,* 62 FR 61731, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997). SKBC reported one LOT in the home market, explaining that home market sales to distributors and end-users were made at the same level of trade. SKBC further submitted that it provided substantially the same level of customer support on its EP sales as it provided on its home market sales to distributors and end-users. We found that the selling functions (which included customer correspondence, order review and approval, post sale service and warranties, technical advice and services, advertising, freight and delivery arrangement, and ascertaining credit worthiness) to be virtually identical for home market sales to distributors and end-users. We also found that SKBC provided virtually the same level of customer support services on its U.S. EP sales as it did on its home market sales. ( *See* Appendix S-2 of SKBC September 2, 2004 Response to the Department's Supplemental Questionnaire.) Therefore, we determine that there is only one LOT for SKBC's EP sales. In its May 26, 2004, response, SKBC indicated that its U.S. subsidiary (Sungkwang Bend America (SKBA)) performed many of the same selling functions on SKBC's CEP sales that SKBC performed on its home market sales. SKBC also indicated that there was one LOT for CEP and that the CEP LOT was different than the home market LOT. We compared CEP sales (after deductions made pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act) to home market sales. We determined there were fewer services such as customer correspondence, order review and approval, post sales service/warranties, technical advice, advertising, freight delivery arrangement, credit services and import document clearance, performed by SKBC on its CEP sales than on SKBC's home market sales. *See id* . In addition, the differences in selling functions performed for home market and CEP transactions indicate home market sales involved a more advanced stage of distribution than CEP sales. *See id* . In the home market, SKBC provided marketing further down the chain of distribution by providing certain downstream selling functions that are normally performed by service centers in the U.S. market ( *e.g.* , technical advice, credit and collection, *etc* .). *See id.* Based on our analysis of the record evidence on selling functions performed for the CEP LOT and the home market LOT, we determined the CEP and the starting price of home market sales represent different stages in the marketing process, and are thus at different LOTs within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.412. Therefore, when we compared CEP sales to home market sales, we examined whether an LOT adjustment may be appropriate. In this case, SKBC sold at one LOT in the home market; thus, there is no basis upon which to determine whether there is a pattern of consistent price differences between LOTs. Further, we do not have the information which would allow us to examine pricing patterns of SKBC's sales of other similar products, and there are no other respondents or other record evidence on which such an analysis could be based. Because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for making an LOT adjustment and the LOT of home market sales is at a more advanced stage than the LOT of the CEP sales, a CEP offset is appropriate in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, as claimed by SKBC. We based the amount of the CEP offset on the amount of home market indirect selling expenses, and limited the deduction for home market indirect selling expenses to the amount of indirect selling expenses deducted from CEP in accordance with section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. We applied the CEP offset to NV, whether based on home market prices or CV. Comparisons To determine whether sales of subject merchandise made by SKBC were made at less than fair value, we compared the EP or CEP, to the NV, as described below. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EP or CEP of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weight-averaged NV of the foreign like product. Transactions Investigated Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that the Department normally will use 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, but may use a date other than the date of invoice if it better reflects the date on which material terms of sale are established. For SKBC, the Department, consistent with its practice, used the invoice date since the invoice date represented the first point at which the home market and U.S. terms of sale were set. (See *e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico, Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* August 6, 2004 (69 FR 47905, 47908). *See also* Verification Report at pages 5-6.) Export Price and Constructed Export Price Section 772(a) of the 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 subsection (c). 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 * * *.,” as adjusted under subsections

(c)and (d). For purposes of this administrative review, SKBC classified all of the U.S. sales that it shipped directly from Korea to the United States as EP sales. SKBC reported all sales that were invoiced through its U.S. subsidiary SKBA as CEP transactions. For these preliminary results, we have accepted these classifications. The merchandise shipped directly to unaffiliated distributors in the U.S. market was not sold through an affiliated U.S. importer. We, therefore, preliminarily determine that these transactions were EP sales. We have classified as CEP transactions the merchandise invoiced through SKBA because these sales were “sold in the United States” within the meaning of the Act. Export Price We calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We based EP on packed prices to customers in the United States. We made deductions for billing adjustments and rebates. We also made adjustments for the following movement expenses: foreign inland freight, international freight, marine insurance, brokerage charges, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. Customs duties. Constructed Export Price We calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act for those sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser that took place after importation into the United States. We based CEP on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included foreign inland freight, international freight, marine insurance, brokerage charges, U.S. inland freight and U.S. customs duties. As further directed by section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses ( *i.e.,* billing adjustments, rebates, credit expenses, technical service expenses, and bank charges) inventory carrying costs, and other indirect selling expenses. We recalculated indirect selling expenses based upon SKBC's revised calculation of those expenses. ( *See* Verification Report, at page 36.) We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Normal Value In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to determine whether there was sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( *i.e.,* the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than or equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared SKBC's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Because SKBC'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 for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. We therefore based NV on home market sales to unaffiliated purchasers made in the usual commercial quantities and in the normal course of trade. We made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses (consisting of inland freight) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustment for imputed credit, warranty, bank charges, and technical service expenses. We made deductions for billing adjustments and rebates. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise ( *i.e.,* Difmer) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We also made an adjustment, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market where commissions were granted on sales in the United States. As noted in the “Level of Trade” section of this notice, we also made an adjustment for the CEP offset in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Because SKBC failed to include labor costs in its original packing calculation, we made additions to both U.S. and home market packing costs to account for the labor component of packing expense. *See* SKBC Verification Report at 37. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily find the weighted-average dumping margin for the period February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004, to be as follows: Manufacturer/ exporter Margin (percent) Sungkwang Bend Company Ltd 1.36 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 30 days of publication. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). 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 or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. 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, we would appreciate it if parties submitting case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments would provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such argument on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues in any such case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and 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. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the POR to the total customs value of the sales used to calculate those duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made during the POR. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to CBP upon completion of the review. Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of stainless steel butt weld pipe fittings from Korea 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 Act:

(1)The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of review;

(2)For any previously reviewed or investigated company not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most recent period;

(3)If the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the 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

(4)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 from the investigation (21.2 percent). *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Welded Stainless Steel Butt Weld Pipe Fittings From Korea,* 58 FR 11029 (February 23, 1993). 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 Act. Dated: February 28, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-917 Filed 3-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-427-814] Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From France AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sebastian Wright or Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-5254 and

(202)482-3964, respectively. Background The Department of Commerce (the Department) published an antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from France on July 27, 1999 ( *see Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Order* , 64 FR 40562 (July 27, 1999)). On July 30, 2004, Ugine & ALZ France, S.A., a French producer of subject merchandise and petitioners (Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, AK Steel, Inc., North American Stainless, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, Butler Armco Independent Union and Zanesville Armco Independent Organization), requested that the Department conduct an administrative review. On August 30, 2004, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on subject merchandise, for the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004 ( *see Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 69 FR 52857 (August 30, 2004)). The preliminary results of this administrative review are currently due no later than April 2, 2005. Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), the Department shall issue preliminary results in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of a review from 245 days to 365 days if it determines that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results within the 245-day period. *See* section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Due to the complexity of issues present in this administrative review, such as home market sales to affiliated parties and complicated cost accounting issues, the Department has determined that it is not practicable to complete this review within the original time period. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations allow the Department to extend the deadline for the preliminary results to a maximum of 365 days from the last day of the anniversary month of the order. For the reasons noted above, we are extending the time for the completion of preliminary results until no later than August 1, 2005, which is the next business day after 365 days from the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The deadline for the final results of this administrative review continues to be 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Dated: February 28, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-921 Filed 3-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [(C-428-829); (C-421-809); (C-412-821)] Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews: Low Enriched Uranium From Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting administrative reviews of the countervailing duty

(CVD)orders on low enriched uranium from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom for the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. For information on the net subsidy for the reviewed companies, please see the “Preliminary Results of Reviews” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. ( *See* the “Public Comment” section of this notice). EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darla Brown or Robert Copyak at

(202)482-2786, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 13, 2002, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the CVD orders on low enriched uranium from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. *See Notice of Amended Final Determinations and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Low Enriched Uranium from Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom,* 67 FR 6688 (February 13, 2002) ( *Amended Final* ). On February 3, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of these CVD orders. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review,* 69 FR 5125 (February 3, 2004). On February 25, 2004, we received a timely request for review from Urenco Ltd. (Urenco), the producer and exporter of subject merchandise. We note that this request covered all subject merchandise produced by Urenco in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. On February 26, 2004, we received a timely request for review from petitioners. 1 On March 26, 2004, the Department initiated administrative reviews of the CVD orders on low enriched uranium from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part,* 69 FR 15788 (March 26, 2004). 1 Petitioners are the United States Enrichment Corporation

(USEC)and USEC Inc. On April 13, 2004, the Department issued a questionnaire to the Government of the United Kingdom

(UKG)and Urenco (Capenhurst) Ltd. (UCL), Urenco's producer of subject merchandise in the United Kingdom. Also on April 13, 2004, the Department issued a separate questionnaire to the Government of the Netherlands

(GON)and Urenco Nederland B.V. (UNL), Urenco's producer of subject merchandise in the Netherlands. On April 16, 2004, the Department issued a questionnaire to the Government of Germany

(GOG)and Urenco Deutschland GmbH (UD), Urenco's producer of subject merchandise in Germany. We received questionnaire responses from the GON, the UKG, UCL, and UNL on May 20, 2004, from the GOG on May 14, 2004, and from UD on May 24, 2004. On October 19, 2004, we issued an extension of the due date for these preliminary results from October 31, 2004, to February 28, 2005. *See Low Enriched Uranium from France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom: Extension of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews,* 69 FR 61470 (October 19, 2004) ( *Extension Notice* ). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), these reviews cover only those producers or exporters for which a review was specifically requested. The companies subject to these reviews are UD, UNL, UCL, Urenco Ltd., and Urenco Inc. These reviews cover four programs. Scope of the Order The product covered by these orders is all low enriched uranium (LEU). LEU is enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF 6 ) with a U 235 product assay of less than 20 percent that has not been converted into another chemical form, such as UO 2 , or fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies, regardless of the means by which the LEU is produced (including LEU produced through the down-blending of highly enriched uranium). Certain merchandise is outside the scope of these orders. Specifically, these orders do not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride with a U 235 assay of 20 percent or greater, also known as highly enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is not covered by the scope of these orders. For purposes of these orders, fabricated uranium is defined as enriched uranium dioxide (UO 2 ), whether or not contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural uranium concentrates (U 3 O 8 ) with a U 235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates converted into uranium hexafluoride with a U 235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the scope of these orders. Also excluded from these orders is LEU owned by a foreign utility end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium dioxide (UO 2 ) and/or fabrication into fuel assemblies so long as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel assemblies deemed to incorporate such imported LEU

(i)remain in the possession and control of the U.S. fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their designed transporter(s) while in U.S. customs territory, and

(ii)are re-exported within eighteen

(POR)for these administrative reviews is January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. International Consortium In our *Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Low Enriched Uranium From Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom,* 66 FR 65903 (December 21, 2001) ( *LEU Final* ) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (LEU Decision Memo) at Comment 2: International Consortium Provision, we found that the Urenco Group operates as an international consortium within the meaning of section 701(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented since the *LEU Final* which would persuade us to reconsider this conclusion. Therefore, we continue to find that the Urenco Group of companies constitutes an international consortium. Accordingly, we have continued to cumulate all countervailable subsidies received by the member companies from the GOG, the GON, and the UKG, pursuant to section 701(d) of the Act. Subsidies Valuation Information Allocation Period Under section 351.524(d)(2) of the Department's regulations, we will presume the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life

(AUL)of renewable physical assets for the industry concerned, as listed in the Internal Revenue Service's

(IRS)1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System (IRS Tables), as updated by the Department of the Treasury. The presumption will apply unless a party claims and establishes that these tables do not reasonably reflect the AUL of the renewable physical assets for the company or industry under investigation, and the party can establish that the difference between the company-specific or country-wide AUL for the industry under investigation is significant. In this instance, however, the IRS Tables do not provide a specific asset guideline class for the uranium enrichment industry. In the *LEU Final,* we derived an AUL of 10 years for the Urenco Group ( *see* LEU Decision Memo at Comment 3: Average Useful Life). The AUL issue is currently subject to litigation related to the investigation. Because there has been no final and conclusive court decision changing the AUL, and no new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted, for these reviews, we continue to apply the 10-year AUL that was calculated in the *LEU Final.* Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Confer a Benefit From the Government of Germany 1. Enrichment Technology Research and Development Program In the *LEU Final,* we determined that, under this program, the GOG promoted the research and development (R&D) of uranium enrichment technologies. The Federal Ministry for Research and Technology provided Uranitisotopentrennungsgeselleschaft mbH (Uranit) (the privately-held German arm of the Urenco Group) a series of grant disbursements for the funding of R&D projects. The funds were provided to encourage continuous improvements of centrifuge technologies and to fund the research of lasers and other advanced technologies. The grant disbursements under this program were made during the years 1980 through 1993. Assistance under this program was provided for in two agreements and two sets of guidelines: the “Financing Agreement,” the “Operating Agreement,” the “Terms and Conditions for Allocations on a Cost Basis to Companies in Industry for Research and Development Projects” (BKFT75), and the “Auxiliary Terms and Conditions for Grants on a Cost Basis from the Federal Ministry for Research and Development to Companies in Industry for Research and Development Projects” (NKFT88), respectively. According to Article 4, Section 6, of the “Financing Agreement,” the funds provided to Uranit under this agreement had contingent repayment obligations. The funds were repayable within five years of disbursement, contingent upon the company's earnings. If the funds were not repaid within five years, then the repayment obligation lapsed. The funds provided under the “Operating Agreement” were not repayable. Uranit also received funds for laser R&D pursuant to the terms and conditions of the BKFT75 and NKFT88. In the *LEU Final,* we determined that the assistance provided under this program constitutes countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. Specifically, we found that the grant disbursements constitute a financial contribution and confer a benefit, as described in sections 771(5)(B) and 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. We further found that this program is specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act because the provision of assistance under this program was limited to one company. In addition, we found that the program provided non-recurring benefits under section 351.524(c)(2) of the Department's regulations because the assistance was made pursuant to specific government agreements and was not provided under a program that would provide assistance on an ongoing basis from year to year. *See* LEU Decision Memo at the “Enrichment Technology Research and Development Program” section. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented to warrant reconsideration of this determination; therefore, for these preliminary results, we continue to determine that this program is countervailable. In the first administrative reviews, we determined that grant disbursements made under this program prior to 1992, including the 1985 disbursement made under the “Financing Agreement,” no longer provided a benefit during those reviews” POR, *i.e.,* January 14, 2001, through December 31, 2002. We also determined that only the grant disbursements made in 1992 and 1993 continued to provide benefits during the 2001-2002 POR. *See Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews: Low Enriched Uranium From Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom,* 69 FR 40869 (July 7, 2004) ( *2001-2002 LEU* ) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum ( *2001-2002 LEU* Decision Memo) at the “Analysis of Programs” section. In *2001-2002 LEU,* we determined that Urenco would not benefit from Enrichment Technology Research and Development Program subsidies from the GOG after 2002 because the grants were fully allocated at the end of 2002. *See 2001-2002 LEU* Decision Memo at Comment 3: Cash Deposit Rate for Future Urenco Imports. Because the grant disbursements under this program were made between 1980 and 1993, the 10-year allocation period for each grant disbursement expired prior to the POR. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that each of these grants has been fully allocated prior to the POR, and, therefore, no benefit was received under this program during the POR. 2. Forgiveness of Centrifuge Enrichment Capacity Subsidies In accordance with the “Risk Sharing Agreement”

(RSA)and the “Profit Sharing Agreement”

(PSA)signed between the GOG and Uranit, the GOG agreed to provide funds to UD to support the promotion of an uranium enrichment industry. These two agreements were signed on July 18, 1975, and the GOG provided a total of DM 338.3 million from 1975 to 1993 to Uranit in support of the Treaty of Almelo's goal of creating and promoting the enrichment industry. 2 Under the terms of the agreements, repayment of the funds was conditional and based upon the financial performance of the company. However, in no case was the amount of the total repayments to exceed twice the amount of the funds provided to UD by the GOG. 2 In March 1970, the GOG, the GON, and the UKG signed the Treaty of Amelo, which became effective in July 1971. The purpose of the treaty was for the three governments to collaborate in the development and exploitation of the gas centrifuge process for producing enriched uranium. Prior to 1971, the centrifuge R&D programs in each country were independent. In 1987, Uranit signed a new agreement with the GOG. This “Adjustment Agreement” stipulated that Uranit would repay the GOG for the DM 333.8 million in centrifuge capacity assistance and an additional agreed-upon DM 31.7 million which was not related to the centrifuge subsidies. Prior to the 1993 merger of the Urenco Group, the GOG and Uranit negotiated a basis to terminate the repayment obligations of the RSA and the PSA. Based upon these negotiations, a “Termination Agreement” was signed on July 13, 1993, and amended on October 27, 1993. Prior to the Termination Agreement, Uranit had made repayments totaling DM 5.6 million. Under the terms of the Termination Agreement, Uranit was to pay the GOG DM 101.1 million, thus terminating the repayment obligations stipulated in the Adjustment Agreement. Uranit made this DM 101.1 million payment on July 1, 1994. In the *LEU Final,* we determined this program to be countervailable. We found that assistance provided under this program to Uranit was specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act because the program was limited to one company. In addition, we determined that a financial contribution was provided under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. We also determined that a benefit was provided to the company, within the meaning of section 771(5)(E) of the Act to the extent that the repayments made to the GOG were less than the amount of assistance provided to the company under this program. *See* LEU Decision Memo at the “Forgiveness of Centrifuge Enrichment Capacity Subsidies” section. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented to warrant reconsideration of this determination; therefore, for these preliminary results, we continue to determine that this program is countervailable. In the *LEU Final,* we determined that this program provided a grant under 19 CFR 351.505(d)(2) because there was a waiver of a contingent liability. We determined the adjusted grant amount to be equal to the difference between the original amount of centrifuge subsidies (DM 338.3 million) and the total amount of repayment attributable to those centrifuge subsidies (DM 97.556 million), which we calculated to be DM 240.744 million. We also determined that the first year of allocation was 1993, the year in which the repayment obligation stipulated in the Adjustment Agreement was waived. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented to warrant reconsideration of this determination. In *2001-2002 LEU,* we determined that Urenco would not benefit from Forgiveness of Centrifuge Enrichment Capacity subsidies from the GOG after 2002 because the grants were fully allocated at the end of 2002. *See 2001-2002 LEU* Decision Memo at Comment 3: Cash Deposit Rate for Future Urenco Imports. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the grant has been fully allocated prior to the POR, and, therefore, no benefit was received under this program during the POR. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used From the Government of the Netherlands 1. Wet Investeringsrekening Law

(WIR)In the *LEU Final,* we found that the WIR program was not used. In the instant administrative reviews, we asked UNL if it received or used benefits under this program during the POR. UNL responded that it did not apply for, use, or receive benefits from the WIR program during the POR. Furthermore, UNL reported that the WIR program ended in 1988 and investment credits could only be claimed through the 1989 tax year. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the WIR was not used during the POR. 2. Regional Investment Premium In the *Amended Final,* we found that, after correcting for a ministerial error in the *LEU Final,* the subsidy from the Regional Investment Program

(IPR)was less than 0.5 percent of the Urenco Group's combined sales and, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), was allocable to the year of receipt (1985). As a result of this revision, the net subsidy for this program decreased from 0.03 percent *ad valorem* to 0.00 percent *ad valorem. See Amended Final,* 67 FR 6688. Moreover, in the instant reviews, UNL reported that it did not apply for nor did it use the IPR program during the POR. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that UNL did not use the IPR program during the POR. Programs From the Government of the United Kingdom We preliminarily determine that UCL neither received any subsidies nor benefitted from any subsides during the POR. Preliminary Results of Reviews In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for UD, UNL, UCL, Urenco Ltd., and Urenco Inc, the only producers/exporters subject to these administrative reviews, for the POR, *i.e.,* calendar year 2003. We preliminarily determine that the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rate is 0.00 percent *ad valorem.* If the final results of these reviews remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), within 15 days of publication of the final results of these reviews, to liquidate without regard to countervailing duties all shipments of subject merchandise from the producers/exporters under review, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the POR. Should the final results of these reviews remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department also will instruct CBP not to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties on all shipments of the subject merchandise from the reviewed entity, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of these reviews. Because the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA)replaced the general rule in favor of a country-wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed companies, are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review will normally cover only those companies specifically named. *See* 19 CFR 351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(c), for all companies for which a review was *not* requested, duties must be assessed at the cash deposit rate, and cash deposits must continue to be collected, at the rate previously ordered. As such, the countervailing duty cash deposit rate applicable to a company can no longer change, except pursuant to a request for a review of that company. *See Federal-Mogul Corporation and The Torrington Company* v. *United States,* 822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 1993), and *Floral Trade Council* v. *United States,* 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993) (interpreting 19 CFR 353.22(e), the old antidumping regulation on automatic assessment, which is identical to the current regulation, 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(ii)). Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all companies except those covered by these reviews will be unchanged by the results of these reviews. We will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rate that will be applied to a non-reviewed company covered by these orders will be the rate for that company established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding. *See Amended Final,* 67 FR 6688. These cash deposit rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested. Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), 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 the public announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the publication of these preliminary results. Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs, unless otherwise specified by the Department. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:

(1)A statement of the issue, and

(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. The Department will publish the final results of these administrative reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing. These administrative reviews and this notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 28, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-926 Filed 3-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-427-819] Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium From France AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on low enriched uranium from France for the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. For information on the net subsidy for the reviewed company, please see the “Preliminary Results of Review” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. ( *See* the “Public Comment” section of this notice). EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson at

(202)482-4793, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 13, 2002, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the countervailing duty order on low enriched uranium from France. *See Amended Final Determination and Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Low Enriched Uranium from France,* 67 FR 6689 (February 13, 2002) ( *Amended LEU Final Determination* ). On February 3, 2004, the Department published an opportunity to request an administrative review of this countervailing duty order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review,* 69 FR 5125 (February 3, 2004). We received a timely request for review of Eurodif S.A. (Eurodif)/Compagnie Generale Des Matieres Nucleaires (COGEMA), the producer/exporter of subject merchandise covered under this review by both respondents and petitioners. 1 On March 26, 2004, the Department published the initiation of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on low enriched uranium from France, covering the January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003 period of review (POR). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation in Part,* 68 FR 15788 (March 26, 2004). 1 Petitioners are USEC Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary, United States Enrichment Corporation. On April 21, 2004, the Department issued a questionnaire to the Government of France

(GOF)and Eurodif/COGEMA. On June 1, 2004, the Department received questionnaire responses from the GOF and Eurodif/COGEMA. On October 19, 2004, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an extension of the deadline for the preliminary results. *See Low Enriched Uranium From France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews,* 69 FR 61470 (October 19, 2004). On October 4, 2004, and January 13, 2005, we issued supplemental questionnaires to respondents. On November 1, 2004, and January 28, 2005, we received supplemental responses from respondents. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those producers or exporters for which a review was specifically requested. The company subject to this review is Eurodif/COGEMA. This review covers two programs. Scope of Order The product covered by this order is all low enriched uranium (LEU). LEU is enriched uranium hexafluoride

(UF6)with a U 235 product assay of less than 20 percent that has not been converted into another chemical form, such as UO 2 , or fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies, regardless of the means by which the LEU is produced (including LEU produced through the down-blending of highly enriched uranium). Certain merchandise is outside the scope of this order. Specifically, this order does not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride with a U 235 assay of 20 percent or greater, also known as highly enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is not covered by the scope of this order. For purposes of this order, fabricated uranium is defined as enriched uranium dioxide (UO 2 ), whether or not contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural uranium concentrates

(U3O8)with a U 235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates converted into uranium hexafluoride with a U 235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the scope of this order. Also excluded from this order is LEU owned by a foreign utility end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium dioxide (UO 2 ) and/or fabrication into fuel assemblies so long as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel assemblies deemed to incorporate such imported LEU

(I)remain in the possession and control of the U.S. fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their designated transporter(s) while in U.S. customs territory, and

(ii)are re-exported within eighteen

(18)months of entry of the LEU for consumption by the end-user in a nuclear reactor outside the United States. Such entries must be accompanied by the certifications of the importer and end user. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 2844.20.0020. Subject merchandise may also enter under 2844.20.0030, 2844.20.0050, and 2844.40.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Period of Review The POR for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. Company History Eurodif was formed in 1973, by French and foreign government agencies to provide a secure source of LEU in order to facilitate the development of nuclear energy programs in participating countries. During the POR, Eurodif was 44.65 percent-owned by COGEMA, which itself is principally owned by a subsidiary of the Commissariat d'Energie Atomique, an agency of the GOF. Further, Eurodif was 25 percent-owned by SOFIDIF, a French company that is 60 percent-owned by COGEMA, thereby effectively placing COGEMA's ownership of Eurodif at approximately 60 percent during the POR. The remaining major shareholders of Eurodif during the POR were ENUSA, an entity of the Spanish government, SYNATOM, an entity of the Belgian government, and ENEA, an entity of the Italian government. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Confer Subsidies 1. Purchases at Prices That Constitute “More Than Adequate Remuneration” Eurodif provides LEU to Electricite de France (EdF), a wholly owned French government agency that supplies, imports, and exports electricity. EdF is the major supplier of electricity in France, and is regulated by the Gas, Electricity, and Coal Department of the Ministry of Industry and the Budget and Treasury Departments of the Ministry of Finance. To date, EdF has entered into three long-term contracts with Eurodif to secure LEU. The first contract was negotiated in 1975; Eurodif began enrichment at its Georges-Besse gaseous diffusion facility in 1979. Eurodif and EdF entered into a subsequent contract in 1995, under which the POR purchases were made. In the *Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Low Enriched Uranium from France,* 66 FR 65901 (December 21, 2001) ( *LEU Final Determination* ), and the *Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium from France,* 69 FR 40871 (July 7, 2004) ( *LEU Final Results* ), we found this program to be countervailable. The facts on which this determination was made have not changed. EdF is still owned by the GOF, and because EdF is purchasing a good from Eurodif, a financial contribution is being provided under section 771(5)(D)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The program is specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act because it is available only to Eurodif. Under section 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act, a countervailable benefit may be provided by a government's purchase of a good for “more than adequate remuneration.” Pursuant to section 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act, the adequacy of remuneration will be determined in relation to the prevailing market conditions for the good being purchased in the country which is subject to the review. Therefore, in order to determine whether the prices paid by EdF constitute “more than adequate remuneration,” we compared the prices paid by EdF to Eurodif with the prices paid by EdF to its other suppliers. Due to the difference in the pricing structure between EdF and Eurodif, as compared with the pricing structure between EdF and its other suppliers, it is necessary to make certain adjustments for the comparison. Unlike most other customers, EdF provides its own energy for Eurodif to use when producing LEU. Beginning in 2002, EdF started to pay Eurodif in energy for the energy that Eurodif uses to produce EdF's LEU. Eurodif charges EdF, however, for the operational costs associated with the production of the LEU. As EdF does not supply electricity to its other LEU suppliers, these suppliers charge EdF a single price per separative work unit (SWU). 2 Thus, we have used this single price per-SWU as our benchmark price. In order to make a proper comparison between the benchmark price and the actual price ( *i.e.* , the price paid by EdF to Eurodif), we included both an operational and energy price paid by EdF to Eurodif. 2 The “separative work unit” or

(SWU)is the unit of measure of effort required to carry out isotopic separation of the uranium from its natural state to the concentration or “assay” required for power plant use. As part of the arrangement for obtaining LEU, customers often provide an amount of natural uranium equal to that which theoretically went into the LEU they are purchasing. The record does not contain information on the value of the natural uranium provided by EdF or other customers to Eurodif. In the “Issues and Decision Memorandum from Bernard T. Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Enforcement II to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration concerning the Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Low Enriched Uranium from France—Calendar Year 1999” ( *Final Determination Decision Memorandum* ) dated December 13, 2001, we assumed that the value of all natural uranium is the same ( *see* discussion at page 5). In making purchase comparisons in this review, we continue to assume that the value of all natural uranium is the same in instances where EdF supplied its own feed material for enrichment. Thus, we have not included a value for the natural uranium component of the LEU delivered to EdF by Eurodif. In order to determine whether a benefit was provided to Eurodif/COGEMA during the POR, we calculated a per-SWU price for both the energy and operational components of the LEU purchased by EdF from Eurodif. See the February 28, 2005, Memorandum concerning the Calculations for the Notice of Preliminary Countervailing Duty Results: Low Enriched Uranium from France ( *Preliminary Calculations Memorandum* ). 3 After adding these two components together, we compared the per-SWU price paid to Eurodif by EdF in 2003, with the per-SWU price paid by EdF to its other LEU suppliers in 2003. Based on our analysis, we preliminarily determine that the per-SWU price paid by EdF to Eurodif was not higher than the per-SWU price paid by EdF to its other suppliers and, therefore, EdF's LEU purchases from Eurodif did not confer a countervailable benefit during the POR. 3 A public version of the document is available on the public record in the Central Records Unit

(CRU)located in the main Commerce Building in room B-099. We, however, did calculate a countervailable benefit from a sale pursuant to the contract listed in Exhibit 21 of Eurodif/COGEMA's June 1, 2004, questionnaire response. 4 Consistent with our approach in the *LEU Final Results,* we expensed the benefit in the year of receipt. For a further discussion, see the *Preliminary Calculations Memorandum.* We then multiplied the benefit amount by the sales of subject merchandise to the United States divided by total sales, and then divided that result by sales that entered U.S. customs territory during 2003. Thus, we calculated the *ad valorem* rate for this program using the following formula: 4 The details of this transaction are business proprietary. EN07MR05.000 Where: A = *Ad Valorem* Rate B = Subsidy Benefit C = Sales of Subject Merchandise to the United States during the Calendar Year D = Total Sales during the Calendar Year (including COGEMA sales on behalf of Eurodif) E = Sales that Entered U.S. customs territory during the Calendar Year On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from this program to be less than 0.005 percent *ad valorem.* 5 5 Where the countervailable subsidy rate for a program is less than 0.005 percent, the program is not included in the total countervailing duty rate. *See, e.g.* , the *Other Programs Determined to Confer Subsidies* section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum that accompanied the *Final Results of Administrative Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada,* 69 FR 75917 (December 20, 2004). 2. Exoneration/Reimbursement of Corporate Income Taxes Under a specific governmental agreement entered into upon Eurodif's creation, Eurodif is only liable for income taxes on the portion of its income relating to the percentage of its private ownership. Eurodif is fully exonerated from payment of corporate income taxes corresponding to the percentage of its foreign government ownership and is eligible for a reimbursement of the amount of corporate income taxes corresponding to the percentage of its French government ownership. In the *LEU Final Determination* and *LEU Final Results,* we found this program to be countervailable. No new information has been provided in this review to warrant reconsideration of our determination. During the POR, ( *i.e.* , calendar year 2003), Eurodif filed its 2002 corporate income tax return. Based on the governmental tax agreement, Eurodif was exonerated from a portion of its 2002 income taxes filed during the POR. Eurodif was also reimbursed that portion of its 2002 income taxes attributable to its percentage of French government ownership during the POR. This tax exemption and reimbursement constitute a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. Further, because the tax exemption and reimbursement is limited to Eurodif, the benefit is specific in accordance with section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.509(b), we calculated the benefit under this program by determining the amount of corporate income taxes that Eurodif would have otherwise paid, absent the program, on the tax return it filed during the POR. Specifically, we added the amount of exonerated taxes and the amount of reimbursable taxes during the POR. We then divided the total benefit amount by Eurodif's total sales for calendar year 2003. We adjusted Eurodif's sales denominator using the methodology described in the “Purchases at Prices that Constitute ‘More Than Adequate Remuneration’ ” section, above. This methodology is consistent with our approach in the *LEU Final Results.* On this basis, we preliminarily determine a net countervailable subsidy of 1.23 percent *ad valorem* under this tax program. Preliminary Results of Review In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have calculated an individual rate for Eurodif/COGEMA for 2003. We preliminarily determine that the total countervailable subsidy rate is 1.23 percent *ad valorem.* If the final results of this review remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review, to liquidate shipments of LEU from France by Eurodif/COGEMA entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003, at 1.23 percent *ad valorem* of the f.o.b. invoice price. The Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at 1.23 percent *ad valorem* of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject merchandise from Eurodif/COGEMA entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor of a country-wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed companies, are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review will normally cover only those companies specifically named. *See* 19 CFR 351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(c), for all companies for which a review was not requested, duties must be assessed, and cash deposits must continue to be collected, at the cash deposit rate previously ordered. As such, the countervailing duty cash deposit rate applicable to a company can no longer change, except pursuant to a request for a review of that company. *See Federal-Mogul Corporation and The Torrington Company* v. *United States,* 822 F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993) and *Floral Trade Council* v. *United States,* 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993) (interpreting 19 CFR 353.22(e), the antidumping regulation on automatic assessment, which is identical to 19 CFR 351.212(c)(ii)(2). Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all companies except those covered by this review will be unchanged by the results of this review. We will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this order will be the rate for that company established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding. *See Amended LEU Final Determination,* 67 FR 6689 (February 13, 2002). These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested. While the countervailing duty deposit rate for Eurodif/COGEMA may change as a result of this administrative review, we have been enjoined from liquidating any entries of the subject merchandise. Consequently, we do not intend to issue liquidation instructions for these entries until such time as the injunctions, issued on June 24, 2002, and November 1, 2004, are lifted. Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), 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 the public announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs, unless otherwise specified by the Department. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:

(1)A statement of the issue, and

(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs, that is, 37 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of arguments made in any case or rebuttal briefs. This administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19 U.S.C. 1677f(I)(1)). Dated: February 28, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-927 Filed 3-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 030105C] Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Notice of Crab Rationalization Program Public Workshops AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public workshops. SUMMARY: NMFS will present a series of public workshops on the new Crab Rationalization Program (Program) for participants the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

(BSAI)king and Tanner crab fisheries. At each workshop, NMFS will provide an overview of the Program, discuss the key Program elements, provide information on the application process, and answer questions. NMFS is conducting these public workshops to provide assistance to fishery participants in complying with the requirements of this new Program. DATES: Workshops will be held in March and April 2005. For specific dates and times see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . ADDRESSES: Workshops will be held in Kodiak, AK; Seattle, WA; Newport, OR; and Anchorage, AK. For specific locations see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheela McLean, 907-586-7032 or *sheela.mclean@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 2, 2005, NMFS published a final rule implementing the Crab Rationalization Program (Program) as Amendments 18 and 19 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/ Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs. In January 2004, the U.S. Congress amended section 313(j) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Pub. L. No. 108-199, section 801). As amended, section 313(j)(1) requires the Secretary to approve and implement the Program, as it was approved by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) between June 2002 and April 2003, and all trailing amendments, including those reported to Congress on May 6, 2003. In June 2004, the Council consolidated its actions on the Program into the Council motion, which is contained in its entirety in Amendment 18. Additionally, in June 2004, the Council developed Amendment 19, which represents minor changes necessary to implement the Program. The Notice of Availability for these amendments was published in the **Federal Register** on September 1, 2004 (69 FR 53397). NMFS approved Amendments 18 and 19 on November 19, 2004. NMFS published a proposed rule to implement Amendments 18 and 19 in the **Federal Register** on October 29, 2004 (69 FR 63200). NMFS is conducting public workshops to provide assistance to fishery participants in complying with the requirements of this new Program. At each workshop, NMFS will provide an overview of the Program, discuss the key Program elements, and provide information on the application process. The key Program elements to be discussed include economic data collection, the Arbitration System, community measures, monitoring and enforcement, electronic reporting, quota share and individual fishing quota application and transfer provisions, the appeals process, fee collection, and the loan program. Additionally, NMFS will answer questions from workshop participants. For further information on the Crab Rationalization Program, please visit the NMFS Alaska Region Internet site at *www.fakr.noaa.gov* . Workshop Dates, Times, and Locations NMFS will hold public workshops as follows: 1. Friday, March 18, 2005, 10 a.m. - 4 p.m. Alaska local time

(ALT)- Choral Pod, Kodiak High School, Kodiak, AK. 2. Wednesday, March 30, 2005, 10 a.m. - 4 p.m. Pacific Standard Time

(PST)- Leif Erickson Hall, 2245 Northwest 57th Street, Seattle, WA. 3. Friday, April 1, 2005, 10 a.m. - 4 p.m. PST - Seminar Room, Marine Hatfield Science Center, 2030 Southeast Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR 4. Tuesday, April 5, 2005, 6 p.m. - 9 p.m. ALT - Anchorage Hilton, Katmai/Dillingham Room, 500 West Third Avenue, Anchorage, AK. Special Accommodations These workshops are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for special accommodations should be directed to Sheela McLean (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) at least five working days before the workshop date. Dated: March 1, 2005. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 05-4379 Filed 3-4-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 22

Traces to 22 documents

CFR