Notices. Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
22,631 words·~103 min read·
/register/2005/08/08/05-15639·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-427-816, A-533-817, A-560-805, A-475-826, A-588-847, A-580-836) Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and the Republic of Korea; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 3, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders (“AD Orders”) on Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate (“CTL Plate”) from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and the Republic of Korea pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Initiation of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews* , 70 FR 75 (January 3, 2005).
On the basis of notices of intent to participate and adequate substantive responses filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties and inadequate responses from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted expedited sunset reviews of the AD Orders pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the Department's regulations. As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the AD Orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Reviews,” section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roberto Facundus or David Goldberger, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3464 or
(202)482-4136, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 3, 2005, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the AD Orders on CTL Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and the Republic of Korea pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews* , 70 FR 75 (January 3, 2005). The Department received notices of intent to participate from the following domestic parties within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i): Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. 1 , IPSCO Steel Inc., Nucor Corporation, and United States Steel Corp. These four parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), as domestic manufacturers and producers of the domestic like product. The Department received a collective substantive response from Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc., IPSCO Steel Inc., and Nucor Corporation (collectively “the domestic interested parties”) within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department received no substantive responses from any of the respondent interested parties to these proceedings. 2 As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted expedited sunset reviews of these AD Orders. 1 Bethlehem Steel Corporation was one of the original petitioners in the investigation. International Steel Group Inc. was the successor company to Bethlehem Steel Corporation. *See* Letters from Nucor Corporation, International Steel Group Inc. (Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc.), and IPSCO Steel Inc. to the Secretary of Commerce re: Five-year ( sunset“) review(s) pursuant to Section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 of the Antidumping Duty Order(s) on Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and the Republic of Korea - Substantive Response(s) to Notice of Initiation (February 1, 2005) (separate letters were simultaneously submitted for each country). International Steel Group Inc. was later acquired and its name changed to Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. *See* Letters from Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. to the Secretary of Commerce re: Sunset Review(s) of Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and the Republic of Korea: Notice of Change in International Steel Group Inc.'s Name (April 20, 2005) (separate letters were simultaneously submitted for each country), and Letters from Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. to the Secretary of Commerce re: Antidumping Duty Sunset Review(s) of Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and the Republic of Korea: Clarification of Mittal Steel USA ISG's name (May 6, 2005) (separate letters were simultaneously submitted for each country). 2 GTS Industries S.A., a French producer of subject merchandise, submitted a waiver of participation in the sunset review of CTL Plate from France. *See* Letter to Gary S. Taverman re: Antidumping Duty Sunset Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France; Statement of Waiver (February 2, 2005). On May 3, 2005, the Department extended the time limit for the final results of these sunset reviews to on or about August 1, 2005. *See Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and Korea; Extension of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders* , 70 FR 22843 (May 3, 2005). Scope of the Orders The products covered by the AD Orders are certain hot-rolled carbon-quality steel:
(1)Universal mill plates ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality steel; and
(2)flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not in coils). Steel products to be included in the scope of these orders are of rectangular, square, circular or other shape and of rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”)--for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted physical characteristics that are painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within this scope. Also, specifically included in the scope of these orders are high strength, low alloy (“HSLA”) steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Steel products to be included in this scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) definitions, are products in which:
(1)Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements,
(2)the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight, and
(3)none of the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent zirconium. All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the scope of these orders unless otherwise specifically excluded. The following products are specifically excluded from these orders:
(1)Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances;
(2)SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above;
(3)products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents;
(4)abrasion-resistant steels ( *i.e.* , USS AR 400, USS AR 500);
(5)products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade S, or their proprietary equivalents;
(6)ball bearing steels;
(7)tool steels; and
(8)silicon manganese steel or silicon electric steel. Regarding the scope of the order for Japan, the following additional exclusions apply with respect to abrasion-resistant steels: NK-EH-360 (NK Everhard 360) and NK-EH-500 (NK Everhard 500). NK-EH-360 has the following specifications:
(a)Physical Properties: Thickness ranging from 6-50 mm, Brinell Hardness: 361 min.;
(b)Heat Treatment: controlled heat treatment; and
(c)Chemical Composition (percent weight): C: 0.20 max., Si: 0.55 max., Mn: 1.60 max., P: 0.030 max., S: 0.030 max., Cr: 0.40 max., Ti: 0.005-0.020, B: 0.004 max. NK-EH-500 has the following specifications:
(a)Physical Properties: Thickness ranging from 6-50 mm, Brinell Hardness: 477 min.;
(b)Heat Treatment: Controlled heat treatment; and
(c)Chemical Composition (percent weight): C: 0.35 max., Si: 0.55 max., Mn: 1.60 max., P: 0.030 max., S: 0.030 max., Cr: 0.80 max., Ti: 0.005-0.020, B: 0.004 max. The merchandise subject to these orders is currently classifiable in the HTSUS under subheadings: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise covered by these orders is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated August 1, 2005. (“Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the accompanying Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the orders were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, under the heading “August 2005.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Sunset Reviews The Department determines that revocation of the AD Orders on CTL Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and the Republic of Korea would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the rates listed below: Exporter/Manufacturer Margin Percentage France Usinor, S.A. 10.41 All Others 10.41 India Steel Authority of India, Ltd. 42.39 All Others 42.39 Indonesia PT Gunawan Dianjaya/PT Jaya Pari Steel Corporation 50.80 PT Krakatau Steel 52.42 All Others 50.80 Italy Palini and Bertoli S.p.A 7.85 All Others 7.85 Japan Kawasaki Steel Corporation 10.78 Kobe Steel, Ltd. 59.12 Nippon Steel Corporation 59.12 NKK Corporation 59.12 Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. 59.12 All Others 10.78 Republic of Korea Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. 2.98 All Others 2.98 Notification regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 1, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-4249 Filed 8-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-878] Saccharin From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on saccharin from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period December 27, 2002, through June 30, 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. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blanche Ziv or Steve Williams, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4207 and
(202)482-4619, respectively. Background On July 9, 2003, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on saccharin from the PRC. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Saccharin from the People's Republic of China,* 68 FR 40906 (July 9, 2003). On July 1, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on saccharin from the PRC for the period December 27, 2002, through June 30, 2004. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review,* 69 FR 39903 (July 1, 2004). On July 26, 2004, Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Fortune”), an exporter and producer of subject merchandise, requested an administrative review of its sale(s) to the United States during the POR. On July 30, 2004, PMC Specialities Group, Inc. (“the petitioner”) requested an administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b) of the following nine companies: Suzhou Fine Chemicals Group Co. (“Suzhou Chemicals”), Shanghai Fortune, Kaifeng Xinghua Fine Chemical Factory (“Kaifeng Chemical”), Productos Aditivos, S.A. (“Productos Aditivos”), Kenko Corporation, Tianjin North Food, Tianjin Changjie Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Tianjin Changjie”), Daiwa Kenko Company Limited (“Daiwa Kenko”), and Beta Udyog Ltd. (“Beta Udyog”). On August 30, 2004, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of the initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review of saccharin from the PRC for the period December 27, 2002, through June 30, 2004. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part,* 69 FR 52857 (August 30, 2004). On March 24, 2005, the Department published a notice in the **Federal Register** extending the time limit for the preliminary results of review until July 31, 2005. 1 *See Saccharin From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review,* 70 FR 15066 (March 24, 2005). 1 Because the due date ( *i.e.* , July 31, 2005) for these preliminary results falls on a Sunday, the actual date of signature is extended to the next business day ( *i.e.* , August 1, 2005). On April 8, 2005, the Department requested from CBP copies of all customs documents pertaining to the entry of saccharin from the PRC exported by Shanghai Fortune during the POR. *See* the “Request for U.S. Entry Documents—Saccharin from the People's Republic of China (A570878002)” memorandum dated April 8, 2005, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), room B-099 of the main Department building. On May 17, 2005, we received documentation from CBP regarding our April 8, 2005, request for Shanghai Fortune's entry information. On June 21, 2005, we placed on the record the entry documentation received from CBP in response to our April 8, 2005, request for information on the shipment of saccharin from the PRC exported by Shanghai Fortune during the POR. *See* the “Results of Request for Assistance from Customs and Border Protection on U.S. Entry Documents” memorandum dated June 21, 2005, which is on file in the CRU. Respondents On September 1, 2004, we issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to Suzhou Chemicals, Shanghai Fortune, Kaifeng Chemical, Productos Aditivos, Kenko Corporation, Tianjin North Food, Tianjin Changjie, and Beta Udyog. 2 We confirmed that all parties named above signed for and received our mailing of the antidumping duty questionnaires. *See* the “Issuing antidumping questionnaire to respondents without legal counsel” memorandum dated December 8, 2004 (“ *Receipt Confirmation Memo* ”), which is on file in the CRU. Because we did not receive a response to the antidumping duty questionnaire, the Department issued letters on November 18, 2004, and March 15, 2005 to Suzhou Chemicals, Tianjin Changjie, Beta Udyog, Kaifeng Chemical, and Tianjin North Food, notifying these companies of the consequences of not responding to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. Suzhou Chemicals, Tianjin Changjie, Beta Udyog, Kaifeng Chemical, and Tianjin North Food did not respond to the Department's questionnaire or to the Department's warning letter. See the “The PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise Available” section below for further information regarding these companies. 2 We did not send a questionnaire to Daiwa-Kenko because of its affiliation with Shanghai Fortune, identified during the investigation. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin From the People's Republic of China,* 68 FR 27530 (May 30, 2003) (“ *LTFV Investigation* ”) and the “Investigation of Saccharin from the People's Republic of China for the period of January 1, 2002 through June 30, 2002; Analysis of Affiliation for Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd.” memorandum dated December 18, 2002. Shanghai Fortune On October 21, 2004, Shanghai Fortune submitted its response to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Shanghai Fortune on January 24 and 28, April 13, May 13, June 14, July 7 and 22, 2005. Shanghai Fortune submitted responses to these supplemental questionnaires on February 8 and 18, April 28, May 27, June 21, July 12 and 26, 2005. The Department also issued a supplemental questionnaire to Shanghai Fortune's U.S. customer, Richwell Group, Inc. (“Richwell”) on April 18, 2005. Richwell submitted a response to this supplemental questionnaire on April 25, 2005. Daiwa-Kenko On February 2, 2005, we sent an antidumping duty questionnaire to Daiwa-Kenko to confirm its affiliation with Shanghai Fortune and its operating status with respect to the merchandise under review. Acknowledging its affiliation with Daiwa-Kenko, Shanghai Fortune responded to the Department's questionnaire on behalf of Daiwa-Kenko on March 3, 2005. Thus, for the purpose of these preliminary results, we continue to find Daiwa-Kenko and Shanghai Fortune affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(g), Shanghai Fortune certified that Daiwa-Kenko did not manufacture, purchase, sell or export shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR. Kenko Corporation and Productos Aditivos In December 2004, we received notification from Kenko Corporation (located in Japan) and Productos Aditivos (located in Spain), asserting that the merchandise they exported to the United States during the POR was not of PRC origin. *See* the “Cooperative pro se Respondents Located in Japan and Spain” memorandum dated December 8, 2004, which is on file in the CRU. On December 16, 2004, we issued modified questionnaires to Kenko Corporation and Productos Aditivos requesting certain information regarding each company's corporate structure and affiliations, as well as certifications regarding the origin of their merchandise. We received a response to our modified questionnaire from Productos Aditivos on January 5, 2005. In its response, Productos Aditivos stated that all of its sales of subject merchandise sold to the United States during the POR were produced by its own production facilities in Spain. As such, it had no sales of PRC saccharin subject to the antidumping duty order and to this review. On July 5, 2005, Productos Aditivos certified that the information submitted in its December 30, 2005, submission was accurate in accordance with section 351.303(g) of the Department's regulations. On February 17, 2005, we received a response to our modified questionnaire from Kenko Corporation demonstrating that its merchandise sold to the United States during the POR was of Japanese origin and thus not subject to the antidumping duty order on saccharin from the PRC and to this review. On July 5, 2005, Kenko Corporation certified that the information submitted in its February 17, 2005, submission was accurate in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(g). Period of Review The POR is December 27, 2002, through June 30, 2004. Scope of the Order The product covered by this antidumping duty order is saccharin. Saccharin is defined as a non-nutritive sweetener used in beverages and foods, personal care products such as toothpaste, table top sweeteners, and animal feeds. It is also used in metalworking fluids. There are four primary chemical compositions of saccharin:
(1)Sodium saccharin (American Chemical Society Chemical Abstract Service (“CAS”) Registry #128-44-9);
(2)calcium saccharin (CAS Registry #6485-34-3);
(3)acid (or insoluble) saccharin (CAS Registry #81-07-2); and
(4)research grade saccharin. Most of the U.S.-produced and imported grades of saccharin from the PRC are sodium and calcium saccharin, which are available in granular, powder, spray-dried powder, and liquid forms. The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under subheading 2925.11.00 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”) and includes all types of saccharin imported under this HTSUS subheading, including research and specialized grades. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and the customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope of this order remains dispositive. Preliminary Partial Rescissions of Administrative Reviews Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we have preliminarily determined that Daiwa-Kenko, Kenko Corporation, and Productos Aditivos did not make shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. In support of these preliminary results, the responses of these companies indicate that:
(1)Daiwa-Kenko did not manufacture, purchase, sell or export shipments of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR;
(2)the saccharin exported to the United States during the POR by Kenko Corporation was produced by a Japanese manufacturer in Japan; and
(3)the saccharin exported to the United States during the POR by Productos Aditivos was produced by Productos Aditivos in Spain. Additionally, we conducted a data query of CBP entry information on all saccharin entries made during the POR from Hong Kong, Japan, Spain and the PRC to substantiate their claims that and/or determine whether they made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Based on the data obtained from CBP, we found no information indicating that there were other U.S. entries of the subject merchandise during the POR from these companies other than the information reported to the Department by Daiwa-Kenko, Kenko Corporation and Productos Aditivos. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above and based on the results of our queries, we are preliminarily rescinding the administrative review with respect to Daiwa-Kenko, Kenko Corporation and Productos Aditivos because we found no evidence that these companies made shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). Non-Market Economy Country Status In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (“NME”) country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review,* 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003). None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated normal value (“NV”) in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries. Surrogate Country When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value on the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market-economy countries that are:
(1)At a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and
(2)significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the “Normal Value” section below and in the “Factors Valuations for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review” memorandum, dated August 1, 2005 (“ *Factor Valuation Memo* ”), which is on file in the CRU. The Department has determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. *See* the “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Saccharin from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries” memorandum dated December 16, 2004, which is on file in the CRU. Customarily, we select an appropriate surrogate country based on the availability and reliability of data from the countries that are significant producers of comparable merchandise. For PRC cases, the primary surrogate country has often been India if it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. In this case, we have found that India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. *See* the “2002-2004 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order of Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country” memorandum dated April 26, 2005 (“ *Surrogate Country Memo* ”), which is on file in the CRU. The Department is using India as the primary surrogate country, and, accordingly, has calculated NV using Indian prices to value the PRC producer's factors of production, when available and appropriate. *See Surrogate Country Memo* and *Factor Valuation Memo* . We have obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever possible. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in an antidumping administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value factors of production within 20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Affiliation-Shanghai Fortune In its April 25, 2005, submission, Richwell, Shanghai Fortune's U.S. customer, stated that the president and one hundred percent owner of the company and the owner and general manager of Shanghai Fortune 3 are cousins. As detailed in our September 1, 2004, original questionnaire and in our April 18, 2005, supplemental questionnaire, an affiliated person is:
(1)A family member;
(2)an officer or director of an organization and that organization;
(3)partners;
(4)employers and their employees; and
(5)any person or organization directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, five percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of any organization and that organization. In addition, affiliates include:
(6)any person who controls any other person and that other person; and
(7)any two or more persons who directly control, are controlled by, or are under common control with, any person. *See* section 771(33) of the Act. 3 We note that the Shanghai Fortune is controlled by a board of directors, which is controlled by the owner and general manager of Shanghai Fortune. In order to find affiliation between companies, the Department must find that at least one of the criteria listed above is applicable. Here, where each cousin holds one hundred percent ownership in his company, we consider each cousin and his company to be affiliated under section 771(33)(E) of the Act. Further, we find that each cousin's ownership and position in senior management within the two companies places him in a position of legal and operational control of the company and in a position to impact decisions concerning the production, pricing or cost of the subject merchandise. Thus, affiliation between the cousins and their respective companies is also established under section 771(33)(G) of the Act. We also find that Shanghai Fortune and Richwell, by virtue of the familial relationships of their owners, are affiliated under section 771(33)(A) of the Act. Section 771(33)(A) of the Act states that “members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether by the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants” shall be considered affiliated. “The word ‘including’ in section
(A)of 19 U.S.C. 1677(33) is an indication that Congress did not intend to limit the definition of ‘family’ to the members listed in this section.” *See Ferro Union* 44 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (CIT 1999). The Department has also stated that “we find nothing in the statute to prevent it from applying to uncle-nephew relationships, aunt-niece relationships, or cousin-cousin relationships.” *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From the Republic of Korea,* 66 FR 33526 (June 22, 2001), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 1. Also, where two companies are affiliated under section 771(33)(A) of the Act, there is no need to address the issue of control. *See Structural Steel Beams from Korea; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 70 FR 6837 (February 9, 2005), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 2. Thus, we find that Shanghai Fortune and Richwell are affiliated as a consequence of the cousin-to-cousin relationship of the owners of his respective company in accordance with sections 771(33)(A), (E), and
(G)of the Act. Separate Rates The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all past antidumping investigations. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin From the People's Republic of China,* 65 FR 33805 (May 25, 2000), and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the People's Republic of China,* 65 FR 19873 (April 13, 2000). A designation as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. *See* section 771(18)(C) of the Act. Accordingly, there is a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the PRC are subject to government control and thus, should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject to review in NME countries a single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the test established in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China,* 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by the *Notice of 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* ”). For the reasons discussed in the section below entitled “The PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise Available,” we have determined that Suzhou Chemicals, Kaifeng Chemical, Tianjin North Food, Tianjin Changjie, and Beta Udyog do not qualify for a separate rate and are instead part of the PRC entity. Shanghai Fortune provided the requested separate-rate information in its responses to our original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, consistent with *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), we performed a separate-rates analysis to determine whether Shanghai Fortune is independent from government control. A. Absence of De Jure Control The Department considers the following *de jure* criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate:
(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; and
(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies. Shanghai Fortune reported that the subject merchandise was not subject to any government export provisions 4 or export licensing, and was not subject to export quotas during the POR. Shanghai Fortune also submitted a copy of its business license. We found no inconsistencies with Shanghai Fortune's claims of an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with its business license. Shanghai Fortune submitted copies of statutory and regulatory authority establishing the *de jure* absence of government control over the company. Specifically, the *Administrative Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing the Registration of Legal Corporations* , issued on June 13, 1988, by the State Council of the PRC, and the *Law of the People's Republic of China of Industrial Enterprises Owned by the Whole People* , effective August 1, 1998, all placed on the record of this review, provide that, to qualify as legal persons, companies must have the “ability to bear civil liability independently” and the right to control and manage their businesses. These regulations also state that, as an independent legal entity, a company is responsible for its own profits and losses. In prior cases, the Department has analyzed these laws and regulations and found that they establish an absence of *de jure* control. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 56045, 56046 (November 6, 1995). We have no information in this proceeding that would cause us to reconsider this determination. Thus, we believe that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of an absence of de jure government control based on:
(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the exporter's business license; and
(2)the legal authority on the record decentralizing control over the respondent. 4 Although the respondent states that the Chamber of Commerce for Medicines and Health Products Importers and Exporters has attempted to prevent dumping through a program that sets a price floor and other conditions for exports of saccharin, the Department preliminarily determines that this program does not require us to deny a separate rate to members of the saccharin industry. The Department's separate rate test does not consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-type controls ( *e.g.* , export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. Rather, the test focuses on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the individual firm level. *See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value* , 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997). B. Absence of 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 Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China* , 63 FR 72255 (December 31, 1998). Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government 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 government control of its export functions:
(1)Whether the exporter sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority;
(2)whether the respondent has the 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 its management; and
(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. Shanghai Fortune reported that it is wholly owned by a foreign entity and has asserted the following:
(1)There is no government participation in setting export prices;
(2)sales managers and authorized employees have the authority to bind sales contracts;
(3)it does not have to notify any government authorities of management selections;
(4)there are no restrictions on the use of export revenue;
(5)it is responsible for financing its own losses; and
(6)it does not coordinate prices with other exporters or producers. During our analysis of the information on the record, we found no information indicating the existence of de facto government control. Consequently, we preliminarily find that Shanghai Fortune has met the criteria for the application of a separate rate. The PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise Available All respondents were given the opportunity to respond to the Department's questionnaire. As explained above, we received questionnaire responses from Shanghai Fortune, 5 Kenko Corporation, and Productos Aditivos. We have calculated a separate rate for Shanghai Fortune. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from companies that have received their own rate based on the *LTFV Investigation* . As discussed below, we have decided to treat Suzhou Chemicals, Tianjin Changjie, Kaifeng Chemical, Tianjin North Food, and Beta Udyog as part of the PRC-wide entity. 5 As noted above, Shanghai Fortune also responded on behalf of Daiwa-Kenko because of its affiliation with that entity. Suzhou Chemicals, Tianjin Changjie, Kaifeng Chemical, Tianjin North Food, and Beta Udyog did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. 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, or
(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, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title. Furthermore, under section 782(c) of the Act, a respondent has the responsibility not only to notify the Department if it is unable to provide requested information, but also to provide a “full explanation and suggested alternative forms.” Because Suzhou Chemicals, Tianjin Changjie, Kaifeng Chemical, Tianjin North Food, and Beta Udyog did not respond to the questionnaire, we find that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(B)of the Act, the use of total facts available is appropriate. *See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review for Two Manufacturers/Exporters: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China* , 65 FR 50183, 50184 (August 17, 2000). 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 the party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994). Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available information derived from the petition, the final determination from the *LTFV Investigation* , a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. On September 1, 2004, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to Suzhou Chemicals, Tianjin Changjie, Kaifeng Chemical, Tianjin North Food, and Beta Udyog (located in India). We confirmed that the questionnaires we sent to Tianjin Changjie, Beta Udyog, Kaifeng Chemical, and Tianjin North Food were delivered and accepted on November 29 and 24, December 8, and November 26, 2004, respectively. *See Receipt Confirmation Memo* . We also confirmed that a representative of Suzhou Chemicals picked up its questionnaire from the main Commerce building. *See id.* Because they did not provide responses to the Department's questionnaire, the Department is unable to determine whether Suzhou Chemicals, Tianjin Changjie, Kaifeng Chemical, and Tianjin North Food are eligible for a separate rate. Thus, Suzhou Chemicals, Tianjin Changjie, Kaifeng Chemical, and Tianjin North Food have not rebutted the presumption of government control and are presumed to be part of the PRC entity. As noted above, Beta Udyog (located in India), did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. The Department's consistent practice has been to require companies, regardless of whether wholly owned by a market-economy entity, to respond to the Department's questionnaire. Specifically, information requested in the Section A questionnaire is required in order for the Department to assess whether a particular respondent is entitled to a separate rate. While the Department does not conduct a separate-rates test for respondents wholly owned by companies outside the PRC, the Department still needs to analyze the company's Section A questionnaire response to examine information such as whether the company is registered for business in the foreign country or the PRC, the ownership interests of each branch of the company, the type of working relationship between the exporter, producer and other affiliates, and the volume and value of sales that were made to the United States during the POR. *See, e.g., 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); *Memorandum to James J. Jochum: Untimely Section A Questionnaire Submission of Decca Furniture Ltd.* , dated September 16, 2004; and *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Folding Gift Boxes from The People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 40974-75 (August 6, 2001); *Memorandum to the File: Antidumping Duty Investigation on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China, Untimely Section A Questionnaire Submission,* dated December 18, 2003. *See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Bicycles from the People's Republic of China,* 61 FR 19026, 19037 (April 30, 1996). Thus, we cannot assess whether Beta Udyog, a company located in India, is entitled to a separate rate because it did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. Therefore, Beta Udyog does not qualify for a separate rate and is instead part of the PRC entity. The PRC entity (including Suzhou Chemicals, Tianjin Changjie, Kaifeng Chemical, Tianjin North Food, and Beta Udyog) failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in this administrative review, thus making the use of an adverse inference appropriate. Therefore, in accordance with the Department's practice, as adverse facts available, we have preliminarily assigned to the PRC entity the rate of 329.33 percent, the highest rate determined in the current or any previous segment of this proceeding. Corroboration of Secondary Information Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies on the facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined in the SAA as “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See* SAA at 870. The SAA provides that to “corroborate” means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See id.* The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. *See id.* As noted in *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews,* 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. The adverse facts available rate we are applying for the current review was corroborated in the *LTFV Investigation* . *See* the “Final Determination of Saccharin from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Analysis and Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Rate” memorandum, dated May 13, 2003, which is on file in the CRU. We find that the rate remains contemporaneous with the POR of this review. Finally, the Department received no information to date that warrants revisiting the issue of the reliability of the rate calculation itself. *See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 68 FR 41304, 41307-08 (July 11, 2003). 6 Thus, the Department finds that the information is reliable. 6 The Department relied on the corroboration memorandum from the *LTFV Investigation* to assess the reliability of the petition rate as the basis for an adverse facts available rate in the administrative review. 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 adverse facts available, 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). None of these unusual circumstances are present here. As the petition rate is both reliable and relevant, and there is no information on the record of this review that indicates that this rate is invalid or uncharacteristic of the industry, as adverse facts available for the PRC-entity (including Suzhou Chemicals, Tianjin Changjie, Kaifeng Chemical, Tianjin North Food, and Beta Udyog), we determine that this rate has probative value. Accordingly, we determine that this rate, the highest rate from any segment of this administrative proceeding ( *i.e.* , the calculated rate of 329.33 percent), is in accord with section 776(c) of the Act, which requires that secondary information be corroborated ( *i.e.* , have probative value). As a result, the Department determines that the petition rate is corroborated for the purposes of this administrative review and may reasonably be applied to the PRC-wide entity based on each of these respondent's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability in this administrative review as a total adverse facts available rate. Because this is a preliminary margin, the Department will consider all margins on the record at the time of the final results for the purpose of determining the most appropriate final margin based on total adverse facts available. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian Federation* , 65 FR 1139 (January 7, 2000). Date of Sale In its October 21, 2004, questionnaire response to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire, Shanghai Fortune reported that its date of sale ( *i.e.* , the date upon which the material terms of sale were established) was the date of its sales contract ( *i.e.* , March 3, 2004) which occurred within the POR. Based on our review of the information on the record regarding Shangahi Fortune's relationship with its U.S. customer, we determined that Shanghai Fortune and its U.S. customer are affiliated under section 771(33) of the Act. *See* the “Affiliation-Shanghai Fortune” section of this notice for further information. Accordingly, we are reviewing the first sale made by Shanghai Fortune's U.S. affiliate to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. *See* the “Constructed Export Price” (“CEP”) section of this notice for further information. Shanghai Fortune reported that the date of this sale by its U.S. affiliate to the first unaffiliated purchaser ( *i.e.* , the date the material terms of sale were established) was the date of invoice ( *i.e.* , December 16, 2004) which occurred after the POR. 7 7 *See* Shanghai Fortune's May 27, 2005, Supplemental Questionnaire Response at Attachment 1. While section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act states that a dumping calculation should be performed for each entry during the POR, 19 CFR 351.213(e) gives the Department flexibility in this regard by stating that the review can be based on entries, exports, or sales. Indeed, the Department's normal practice for CEP sales made after importation is to examine each transaction that has a date of sale within the POR and to liquidate POR entries based on the dumping margin calculated on those POR sales. *See* 19 CFR 351.212 and the preamble to that section of *Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27314-15 (May 19, 1997). We have also recognized that unique circumstances could lead us to base the margin for CEP sales on the sales entered rather than sold during the POR. Here, the respondent requesting an administrative review of its POR entries had only one entry during the POR, but no POR sale upon which to calculate a dumping margin for that entry. Because the entry during the POR can be tied to a sale occurring after the end of the POR and there are no other U.S. sales during the POR that could be considered for examination as a proxy for the post-POR sale, it is appropriate to determine the duties to be assessed on this entry based on the corresponding sale. Therefore, because the purpose of an administrative review is to establish the antidumping duty for entries, as well as to establish a new cash deposit rate ( *see* section 751(a) of the Act), and we are able to tie the sale occurring after the end of the POR to the entry during the POR, we are using this U.S. sale in our margin calculation. Thus, we are conducting this review on the basis of the date of entry within the POR, and linking the entered subject merchandise to the appropriate sale to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. We will instruct CBP to liquidate the specific entry at the calculated rate. If Shanghai Fortune is a respondent in an administrative review covering the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005, we will exclude this U.S. sale from our margin calculation. *See* , *e.g.* , *Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 17406 (April 6, 2005). Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether the sale of saccharin to the United States by Shanghai Fortune was made at less than NV, we compared CEP to NV, as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we use CEP methodology when the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser occurred after importation of the merchandise into the United States. We calculated the CEP for Shanghai Fortune because the sale was made by its U.S. affiliate to an unaffiliated U.S. customer. We based CEP on the packed FOB 8 price to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. 8 The details of the FOB destination are proprietary information. Thus, due to the proprietary nature of this data, we are unable to provide this information in this preliminary results notice. For Shanghai Fortune, we made adjustments to the gross unit price for foreign inland freight from processing facility to port of exit, foreign brokerage and handling, international ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight from port to warehouse, other U.S. transportation expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, and U.S. import duties. 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 credit expenses, inventory carrying costs and indirect selling expenses. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Because some movement expenses were provided by NME companies, we valued those charges based on surrogate values in India. *See Factor Valuation Memo* . For a more detailed explanation of the company-specific adjustments that we made in the calculation of the dumping margins for these preliminary results, *see* the “Analysis for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd.” memorandum dated August 1, 2005 (“ *Shanghai Fortune Analysis Memo* ”), which is on file in the CRU. Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using a factors-of-production methodology if:
(1)The merchandise is exported from a non-market economy country; and
(2)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 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 our normal methodologies. Factors of production include:
(1)Hours of labor required;
(2)quantities of raw materials employed;
(3)amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and
(4)representative capital costs. We used factors of production reported by Shanghai Fortune for materials, energy, labor, and packing. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will normally use publicly available information to value factors of production, but when a producer sources an input from a market economy and pays for it in market-economy currency, the Department will normally value the factor using the actual price paid for the input. *See* 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1). *See also Lasko Metal Products* v. *United States* , 43 F.3d 1442, 1445-46 (Fed. Cir. 1994). However, when the Department has reason to believe or suspect that such prices may be distorted by subsidies, the Department will disregard the market-economy purchase prices and use surrogate values to determine the NV. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”)* , 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 2002). Shanghai Fortune reported that its international ocean freight was sourced from a market economy, but paid for in a non-market-economy currency ( *i.e.* , RMB). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), we did not use the actual price paid by Shanghai Fortune for this input because it was not paid for in a market-economy currency. Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on factors of production reported by Shanghai Fortune for the POR. To calculate NV, the reported per-unit factor quantities were multiplied by publicly available Indian surrogate values with the exception of the surrogate value for ocean freight, which we obtained from an international freight company. In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. 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 decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in *Sigma Corp* . v. *United States* , 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed description of all surrogate values used for respondents, *see* the *Factor Valuation Memorandum* . Except as noted below, we valued many of the raw material inputs using the weighted-average unit import values derived from Indian import statistics as published in the *Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India* (“ *MSFTI* ”). *See Factor Valuation Memorandum* . The Indian Import Statistics we obtained were reported in Indian rupees and are contemporaneous with the POR. Consistent with the *Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* , we excluded Indian import data reported in the *MSFTI* for Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia in our surrogate value calculations. In addition to the Indian import statistics data, we used information from the Indian trade publication, *Indian Chemical Weekly* (“ *ICW* ”), to value certain chemical inputs. Where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POR with which to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (“WPI”) as published in the *International Financial Statistics* of the International Monetary Fund. Shanghai Fortune reported that it sourced all of its raw material inputs within the PRC. Therefore, we have used Indian import statistics or *ICW* to value each of these inputs. Shanghai Fortune reported that during the production process of saccharin, it recovered and recycled certain chemical products for resale. However, Shanghai Fortune provided no supporting documentation to demonstrate that these by-products were sold during the POR. The amount of by-products reused or sold during the POR is an integral part of the factor calculation for by-products. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from Belarus* , 68 FR 9055 (February 27, 2003) (“The Department allows such credits, but only for the amount of the by-product/recovery actually sold or reused.”). *See also Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Saccharin from the People's Republic of China* , 68 FR 27530 (May 20, 2003), at Comment 6. For these preliminary results, we have not allowed a by-product offset for the amounts reported in its responses or for any smaller amount because Shanghai Fortune did not demonstrate that any of its sales of by-products took place during the POR. *See Factor Valuation Memorandum* and *Shanghai Fortune Analysis Memo* . However, the Department has issued a supplemental questionnaire on this issue and will consider any additional factually supported information and source documents timely submitted by Shanghai Fortune for the final results of this review. *Energy and Water* : To value electricity, we used values from the International Energy Agency to calculate a surrogate value in India for 2000, and adjusted for inflation. No interested parties submitted information or comments regarding these surrogate values and the Department was unable to find a more contemporaneous surrogate value. Because this data was not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the International Energy Agency 2000 Indian price for inflation. *See Factor Valuation Memorandum* . To value steam coal, we used data obtained from the Indian publication, *Teri Energy Data Directory & Yearbook* (“ *Teri Data* ”). The *Teri Data* is publicly available and is contemporaneous with the POR. *See id* . To value water and steam, we used the rates from the website maintained by the Maharastra Industrial Development Corporation ( *http://www.midcindia.org/* ) which shows industrial water rates from various areas within the Maharastra Province, India (“Maharastra Data”). The Maharastra data is publicly available, and is contemporaneous with the POR. *See id* . *Labor* : We valued labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), using the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in November 2004, *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/02wages/02wages.html* . The source of this wage rate data on the Import Administration's web site is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO, (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. The years of the reported wage rates range from 1996 to 2001. Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondent. *See id* . *Packing Materials:* We used Indian import statistics to value material inputs for packing. *See id* . *Movement Expenses:* We valued the foreign inland freight rate based on an average of truck rates that were published in the Indian publication *Chemical Weekly* during the POR. We valued foreign brokerage and handling charges based on an average value calculated in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India* , 66 FR 50406 (October 3, 2001), *Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Final Results of Antidumping New Shipper Review* , 63 FR 25824 (May 11, 1998), and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India* , 69 FR 67306 (November 17, 2004). We adjusted data not contemporaneous with the POR when appropriate. For ocean freight, we used the rate quotes from the website maintained by Maersk Sealand ( *http://www.maersksealand.com* ) for the movement of containers from the PRC to the west coast of the United States. For marine insurance, we relied on rate quotes from RJG Consultants ( *http://www.rjgconsultants.com* ) dating from the POR for the movement of containers from the PRC to the west coast of the United States. *Factory Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative Expenses, and Profit:* To value factory overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses, and profit, we used the 2003 audited financial statements for Atul Limited, an Indian chemical producer that manufactures many of the intermediate raw materials used in the production of saccharin and utilizes many production processes that are similar to those used in the production of saccharin. For a full discussion of the calculation of these ratios from Atul Limited's financial statements, *see Factor Valuation Memorandum* . 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. sale(s) as certified by the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of the Review We preliminarily find that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period December 27, 2002, through June 30, 2004: Saccharin From the PRC Producer/manufacturer/exporter Weighted- average margin (percent) Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd 137.79 PRC-wide entity 9 329.33 9 The PRC-wide entity includes: Suzhou Chemicals, Tianjin Changjie, Kaifeng Chemical, Tianjin North Food, and Beta Udyog. The Department will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the following information:
(1)The party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2)the number of participants; and
(3)a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If we receive a request for a hearing, we plan to hold the hearing three days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this administrative review. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate or value for merchandise subject to this review. Because Shanghai Fortune reported entered values, for these preliminary results we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each applicable importer. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the applicable importer's/customer's entries during the review period. Cash-Deposit Requirements The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)The cash deposit rate for Shanghai Fortune will be the rate listed in the final results of review (except where the rate is *de minimis* , *i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required);
(2)for previously investigated companies not listed above that have separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the *LTFV Investigation* ;
(3)the cash-deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be 329.33 percent, the current PRC-wide rate; and
(4)the cash-deposit rate for all other non-PRC exporters will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers 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 these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b). Dated: August 1, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-4252 Filed 8-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-806] Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests by Globe Metallurgical (petitioner) and Camargo Correa Metais S.A.
(CCM)the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil. The period of review
(POR)is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. We preliminarily determine that CCM did not sell subject merchandise at less than normal value
(NV)during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the export price
(EP)and NV. We invite interested parties to comment on the preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maisha Cryor at
(202)482-5831 or Mark Manning at
(202)482-5253, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 31, 1991, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Silicon Metal from Brazil* , 56 FR 36135 (July 31, 1991). On July 1, 2004, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil for the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 69 FR 39903 (July 1, 2004). On July 16, 2004, CCM requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales. On July 30, 2004, the petitioner requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of sales made by CCM, Ligas de Aluminio S.A (LIASA), and Companhia Ferroligas de Minas Gerais - Minasligas (Minasligas). On August 30, 2004, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 69 FR 52857 (August 30, 2004). On September 14, 2004, the Department issued questionnaires to CCM, LIASA and Minasligas. 1 1 Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, the merchandise under review that it sells, and the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy
(NME)cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production
(COP)of the foreign like product and the constructed value
(CV)of the merchandise under review. Section E requests information on further manufacturing. On September 24, 2004, LIASA and Minasligas both submitted letters to the Department stating that they made no sales or shipments of silicon metal to the United States during the POR. We confirmed with CBP that neither LIASA nor Minasligas had entries of subject merchandise during the POR and rescinded the review with respect to both companies. *See Silicon Metal from Brazil; Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 67702 (November 19, 2004). The Department received a response to section A of the questionnaire from CCM on October 7, 2004, and received responses to sections B through D of the questionnaire on November 1, 2004. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to CCM in December 2004, February 2005, March 2005, June 2005 and July 2005 and received responses in January 2005, February 2005, March 2005, June 2005, and July 2005, respectively. On March 7, 2005, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results until August 1, 2005. *See Silicon Metal from Brazil: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 12185 (March 11, 2005). The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751 of the Act. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order is silicon metal from Brazil containing at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight. Also covered by this administrative review is silicon metal from Brazil containing between 89.00 and 96.00 percent silicon by weight but which contains more aluminum than the silicon metal containing at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight. Silicon metal is currently provided for under subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) as a chemical product, but is commonly referred to as a metal. Semiconductor grade silicon (silicon metal containing by weight not less than 99.99 percent silicon and provided for in subheading 2804.61.00 of the HTSUS) is not subject to the order. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive. Fair Value Comparisons During the POR, CCM reported that it made EP sales to the United States. To determine whether sales of subject merchandise made by CCM were made at less than fair value, we compared EP to the NV, as described in the *Export Price* and *Normal Value* sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual EP transactions, as appropriate. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all silicon metal covered by the *Scope of the Order* section of this notice, supra, which was produced and sold by CCM in the home market to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of silicon metal. Further, as in a prior segment of this proceeding, we have continued to treat all silicon metal meeting the description of the merchandise under the *Scope of the Order* section above (with the exception of slag and contaminated products) as identical products for purposes of model-matching. *See Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Results, Intent To Revoke in Part, Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Extension of Time Limits* , 64 FR 43161 (August 9, 1999), unchanged in *Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Silicon Metal from Brazil* , 65 FR 7497 (February 15, 2000). Therefore, where applicable, if there were no contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the constructed value
(CV)of the product sold in the U.S. market during the comparison period, consistent with section 351.405 of the Department's regulations. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) 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. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sale in the comparison market or, when the NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For CEP sales, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. To determine whether comparison market sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP transactions, 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 with U.S. sales, 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 pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the LOT of the home market sale is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference between the LOT of the home market sale and the CEP transaction affects price comparability, we adjust NV pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). *See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago* , 70 FR 12648 (March 15, 2005). To determine whether a LOT adjustment is warranted, we obtained information from CCM about the marketing stages at which its reported U.S. and comparison-market sales were made, including a description of the selling activities performed by CCM for each of its channels of distribution. In identifying LOTs for CCM's EP and comparison market sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in the starting price before any adjustments. In conducting our LOT analysis for CCM, we took into account the specific customer types, channels of distribution, and selling functions. For CCM we found that there was a single LOT in the United States and a single, identical, LOT in the comparison market. Therefore, it was not necessary to make a LOT adjustment. For a further discussion of our LOT analysis for CCM, *see* Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, Analyst, to Holly A. Kuga, Senior Office Director, “Level of Trade Analysis: Camargo Correa Metais S.A.,” dated August 1, 2005. Export Price For the price to the United States, we used EP as defined in section 772(a) of the Act. 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 exporter or producer outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States for exportation to the United States. We based EP on packed and delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we reduced the starting price by movement expenses and export taxes and duties, if appropriate. These deductions included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance and U.S. customs duties. Normal Value I. *Selection of Comparison Market* Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided that, among other things, the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities in the home market (or has sufficient aggregate value, if quantity is inappropriate). The statute provides that the total quantity of home market sales of foreign like product (or value) will normally be considered sufficient if it is five percent or more of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. *See* section 773(a)(i)(B)(ii) of the Act. Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market sales of foreign like product and U.S. sales of subject merchandise by CCM, we determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold in Brazil is more than five percent of the quantity of U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Accordingly, we based NV on home market sales. In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the *Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices* section below. II. *Cost of Production Analysis* In the most recently completed administrative review of CCM, we disregarded home market sales found to be below COP. *See Silicon Metal from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Intent to Revoke in Part, and Intent Not to Revoke in Part* , 61 FR 46776, 46778 (September 15 1996); unchanged in *Silicon Metal from Brazil; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part* , 62 FR 1954 (January 14, 1997). Therefore, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV in this review may have been made by CCM at prices below the COP. We, therefore, initiated a cost investigation with regard to CCM in order to determine whether this respondent made home market sales during the POR at prices below the COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. A. Calculation of COP In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a weighted-average COP for CCM based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication of the foreign like product, plus amounts for the home market general and administrative (G&A) expenses, interest expenses and packing costs. We relied on the submitted COP data. B. Test of Home Market Sales Prices for CCM For CCM, we compared the per-unit adjusted weighted-average COP figures for the POR to home market sale prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, and discounts. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether:
(1)within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and
(2)such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. C. Results of COP Test for CCM Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were made at prices below the COP, we determined such sales were made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Our cost test revealed that more than twenty percent of CCM's home market sales of certain products were made at below-cost prices during the reporting period. Therefore, we disregarded those below-cost sales, while retaining the above-cost sales for our analysis. C. *Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices* We determined price-based NVs for CCM as follows. For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices above the COP, we based CCM's NV on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold to unaffiliated parties for consumption in Brazil, in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We based NV on sales at the same LOT as the U.S. transactions. For LOT analysis, please see the *Level of Trade* section above. We adjusted the starting price for any differences in packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, and we deducted from the starting price movement expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, where applicable, we adjusted the starting price to account for differences in circumstances of sale
(COS)in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We also adjusted the starting price, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison-market or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other market, where applicable. Specifically, we reduced the starting price for inland freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c), we increased the starting price for interest revenue. We also made COS adjustments to the starting price for imputed credit expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs from, and added U.S. packing costs to the starting price in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B)of the Act. Currency Conversions We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A 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. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-average margin percentage CCM 0.00 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 5 days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument:
(1)A statement of the issue,
(2)a brief summary of the argument and
(3)a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. All case briefs must be submitted within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the case briefs are filed. A hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date the rebuttal briefs are filed or the first business day thereafter. The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written comments or at the hearing, within 120 days from the publication of these preliminary results. The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the review and for future deposits of estimated duties. For duty assessment purposes, we will calculate a per-unit customer or importer-specific assessment rate by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each customer/importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of silicon metal from Brazil 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 rates for the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of review;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value 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 91.06 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. These 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) 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 and 19 CFR 351.221. Dated: August 1, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-4255 Filed 8-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-427-814] Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from Ugine and ALZ France S.A. (U&A France) (the Respondent), and 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 (collectively, the Petitioners), the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils
(SSSS)from France for the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004 (POR). The Department preliminarily finds that U&A France's sales of SSSS in the United States were made at less than normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on entries of U&A France's merchandise during the period of review. The preliminary results are listed in the section titled “Preliminary Results of Review,” below. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
(202)482-3964. Background On July 27, 1999, the Department published the amended final determination and antidumping duty order on SSSS from France. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France,* 64 FR 40562 (July 27, 1999). On July 1, 2004, the Department published a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on SSSS from France for the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. *See Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation,* 69 FR 39903 (July 1, 2004). On July 30, 2004, the Petitioners and U&A France, a producer and exporter of subject merchandise, requested that the Department conduct a review of U&A France's sales or entries of merchandise subject to the Department's antidumping duty order on SSSS from France. On August 30, 2004, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act, the Department published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review for the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part,* 69 FR 52857 (August 30, 2004). On September 16, 2004, the Department issued a questionnaire to U&A France. On November 19, 2004, U&A France filed its response to Section A through E. On December 1, 2004, U&A France submitted a revised version of the computer file format table, which was submitted in the November 19, 2004 response. On January 25, 2005, the Petitioners submitted comments on U&A France's response to Section A of the Department's questionnaire. On January 27, 2005, the Petitioners submitted comments on U&A France's response to section D and E of the Department's questionnaire. On February 4, 2005, the Petitioners submitted their comments on U&A France's response to section B and C of the Department's questionnaire. On February 15, 2005, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for section A to U&A France. On February 25, 2005, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires for section B and C to U&A France. On March 7, 2004, the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review. *See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France,* 70 FR 10985 (March 7, 2005). On March 22, 2005, U&A France filed its response to the section A supplemental questionnaire. On April 1, 2005, U&A France filed its response to section B and C supplemental questionnaire. On May 3, 2005, the Department issued a section D and E supplemental questionnaire to U&A France. On May 27, 2005, U&A France filed its response to the section D and E supplemental questionnaire. On June 15, 2005, the Department issued a second supplemental section D questionnaire to U&A France. On June 24, 2005, U&A France filed its response to the second supplemental section D questionnaire. On June 27, 2005 the Petitioners filed comments on the section A-C supplemental questionnaire responses for U&A France. On July 8, 2005, the Department issued a third supplemental section D questionnaire to U&A France. On the same date, U&A France filed its sales reconciliation with the Department. On July 15, 2005, U&A France filed its response to the third supplemental section D questionnaire. On July 28, 2005, U&A France responded to Petitioners' comments dated June 27, 2005. On July 29, 2005, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire regarding sections A, B, and C to clarify a number of issues raised by the Petitioners. U&A France's response is due after the issuance of the preliminary results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c), parties will have 10 days to comment on the new information. Any decision reached by the Department concerning these issues will be reflected in the final results of this review. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( *e.g.,* cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that is maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81 1 , 7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.7060, and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs' purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive. 1 Due to changes to HTSUS numbers in 2001, 7219.13.0030, 7219.13.0050, 7219.13.0070, and 7219.13.0080 are now 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, and 7219.13.0081, respectively. Excluded from the order are the following:
(1)Sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled,
(2)sheet and strip that is cut to length,
(3)plate ( *i.e.,* flat-rolled stainless sheet products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more);
(4)flat wire ( *i.e.,* cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and
(5)razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. *See* Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d). Flapper valve steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This product is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel strip contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with exclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness
(Hv)of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors. Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length. Certain stainless foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron. Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.” 2 2 “Arnokrome III” is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering Company. Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM)specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” 3 3 “Gilphy 36” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System
(UNS)as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” 4 4 “Durphynox 17” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( *e.g.,* carpet knives). 5 This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybedenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1. percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils in similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5” steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6.” 6 5 This list of uses is illustrative and provided for descriptive purposes only. 6 “GIN4 Mo,” “GIN5” and “GIN6” are the proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. Affiliation U&A France and Imphy Ugine Precision
(IUP)are wholly owned subsidiaries of Usinor S.A. (Usinor). *See* Section A Response of Ugine & ALZ France S.A., dated November 19, 2004, at 18 (Section A Response). Usinor, Arbed, S.A. (Arbed), and Aceralia Corporacion Siderurgica, S.A. (Aceralia) comprise the Arcelor Group. *Id.* at 1, n.2. In the U.S. market, U&A France made sales through one affiliated U.S. company: Arcelor Stainless USA, Inc. (AUSA). IUP made sales in the United States through two affiliated U.S. companies: Rahns Specialty Metals, Inc. (Rahns), which ceased operations in December 2003, and thereafter Hood & Co., Inc. (Hood). AUSA also sold to an affiliate, Arcelor Stainless Processing, LLC
(ASP)and to unaffiliated customers. ASP resold subject merchandise to unaffiliated customers both with and without further processing. AUSA is wholly owned by Arcelor USA Holding, Inc., which is owned by Arcelor Project, Usinor, Matthey Et Cie S.A. Sidarfin and Arcelor International. *See* Section A Response, at 16. These companies are owned by Arcelor, Usinor, and Aceralia. *Id.* We note that there are no significant changes to the ownership structure of these companies since the last review. As a result, the Department preliminarily finds, as we have in all previous reviews, that U&A France, IUP and its U.S. resellers are affiliated. *See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review,* 69 FR 47892 (August 6, 2004) ( *Preliminary Results Fourth Review* ). Collapsing of Affiliated Parties In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401, the Department preliminarily finds that it is appropriate to treat U&A France and IUP as a single entity for purposes of calculating a dumping margin. *See Memorandum to Maria MacKay, Acting Office Director, through Sean Carey, Program Manager, from Sebastian Wright, Analyst, Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From France; Collapsing of Ugine & Alz, Franc, S.A. and Imphy Ugine Precision,* (August 1, 2005), on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B-099 of the main Commerce Building. Normal Value Comparison To determine whether U&A France's sales of subject merchandise to the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the constructed export price
(CEP)to the normal value (NV), as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual CEP transactions. A. Home Market Viability In accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act, to determine whether there were sufficient 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 U&A France's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, because U&A France's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR 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. B. Arm's-Length Test U&A France reported that it made sales in the home market to affiliated end users and resellers during the POR. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(c), the Secretary may calculate NV based on sales to an affiliated party only if satisfied that the price is comparable to the price at which the exporter or producer sold the foreign like product to a person who is not affiliated with the seller. To test whether U&A France's sales were made at arm's length, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Where identical merchandise was not sold to unaffiliated customers, we based the comparisons on sales of the most similar merchandise. Where prices to the affiliated party were on average between 98 and 102 percent of the price to the unrelated party, we determined that sales made to the related party were at arm's length. *See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). We have included in our NV calculations U&A France's sales to affiliated customers that passed the Department's arm's-length test. Conversely, certain sales to affiliated customers that did not pass the arm's-length test have been excluded from our NV calcuation. U&A France's sales to PUM, a reseller, did not pass the arm's-length test. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(d), the Secretary normally will not calculate NV based on the downstream sales by an affiliated parties if the total sales of the foreign like product by an exporter or producer to affiliated parties account for less than five percent of the reporter's or producer's sales of the foreign like product in the market in question. In the instant case, U&A France's sales to affiliates in the home market account for more than five percent of the total value of U&A Frances's home market sales. Therefore, the department cannot disregard the downstream sales of the affiliated party in the calculation of NV. U&A France, however, did not provide PUM's downstream sales information. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party:
(A)Withholds information that has been requested by the Department;
(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form of manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and
(e)of the Act;
(C)significantly impedes a determination under the antidumping statute; or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. In its response to the Department's questionnaire, U&A France claimed, as it has in prior reviews, that sales by PUM were insignificant and would not be used as matches for U.S. sales because the product sold by PUM would not match to a sale of merchandise in the United States. *See* Section A Supplemental Questionnaire Response at 24 (March 22, 2005) (Supplemental Section A Response). U&A France also again claimed that it would be difficult to collect all of the information requested by the Department. *Id.* In a subsequent questionnaire we asked U&A France why is contended that it should not have to report the downstream sales for PUM. *Id.* U&A France reiterated that it would endure an undue burden in providing the downstream sales for PUM and asked the Department to rely on the sales by U&A France to PUM *Id.* U&A France did not provide any of the requested downstream sales information in the database provided with the submission, not did it include that information in any subsequently reported datasets. Consistent with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(B)of the act, because U&A France withheld information requested by the department, we are applying facts otherwise available. In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting the best of its ability to comply with a requested information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of that party as facts otherwise available. In this case, even after receiving the Department's supplemental request, U&A France has refused to provide downstream information for PUM, claiming that to do so would be overly burdensome given the insignificant volume of this reseller's sales compare to the total volume of home market sales and that the product sold by this reseller would not be matched to products sold in the United States. In the prior administrative review, U&A France also refused to provide this information, and the Department applied adverse facts available to these downstream sales. *See Preliminary Results Forth Review* at 47896-47897. Because U&A France explicitly refused to provide the requested downstream sales by PUM, the department preliminarily finds that, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, the application of partial adverse facts available is appropriate. As adverse facts available or U&A France's sales to PUM, we will use the higher of the price charged to PUM by U&A France (the “upsteam” price) or the price charged for the most similar product purchased in the home market by an unaffiliated customer. In selecting this information as adverse facts available, we took into account the small volume of sales involved. C. Date of Sale As stated at 19 CFR 351.401(i), the Department normally will use the invoice date as the date of sale unless another date better reflects the date upon which the exporter or producer establishes the essential terms of sale. U&A France reported the invoice date as the date of sale for both home market and U.S. sales. In the prior segment of this proceeding, we found that invoice date is the correct date of sale for U.S. and home-market sales. *See Preliminary Results Fourth Review* at 47897. Nothing has changed in U&A France's sales process or channels of distribution since the prior review that would cause the Department to revisit its prior decision. Accordingly, the Department preliminarily finds that invoice date is the proper date of sale for both home market and U.S. sales. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all SSSS products covered by the “Scope of the Order” section of this notice and sold 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 SSSS products. We relied on nine characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product (listed in order of preference):
(1)Grande;
(2)hot/cold rolled;
(3)gauge;
(4)surface finish;
(5)metallic coating;
(6)non-metallic coating;
(7)width;
(8)temper; and
(9)edge trim. 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. Normal Value After testing home market viability and whether home market sales were at prices below the cost of production, we calculated NV as noted in the “Price-to-Constructed Value
(CV)Comparison” and “Price-to-Price Comparisons” sections of this notice. Cost of Production Analysis Because we disregarded sales below the cost of production in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by U&A France in its home market were made at prices below the cost of production (COP), pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. *See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France: Final Results Fourth Review* , 70 FR 7240 (February 11, 2005). Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted a COP analysis of home market sales by U&A France as described below. A. Calculation of COP In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a weighted-average COP based on the sum of U&A France's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A), including interest expenses, and packing costs. We relied on the COP data submitted by U&A France in its May 27, 2005, cost questionnaire response. U&A France submitted two sets of cost data, one based on monthly costs and the other based on the weighted-average cost for the POR. U&A France argues that because raw material prices increased significantly during the POR, the Department should depart from its normal practice of calculating an average COP for each CONNUM and instead use average monthly COP. *See* Section D response dated November 19, 2004, at page 42. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(d)(3), for purposes of these preliminary results, we have relied on the weighted-average cost for the POR instead of the monthly costs reported by U&A France because fluctuating raw material prices were not significant enough for us to depart from our standard practice of using one weighted average COP for the POR. *See Memorandum to the File: Analysis of Monthly Costs Submitted by Ugine & Alz France, S.A. from Christopher J. Zimpo,* (August 1, 2005). B. COP test of Home Market Prices We compared the weighted-average COP for U&A France to home market sales of the foreign like product to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made
(1)within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and
(2)at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B)of the Act. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, less any applicable billing adjustments, movement charges, discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses. C. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of U&A France's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of U&A France's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined that such sales have been made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, because we use POR average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices that would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost sales. Calculation of Constructed Value In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of U&A France's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A (including interest expenses), U.S. packing costs, and profit. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by U&A France 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 actual weighted-average home market direct and indirect selling expenses. Export Price and Constructed Export Price In accordance with seciton 772(a) of the Act, export price
(EP)is 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 Act, constructed export price
(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. For purposes of this review, U&A France classified all of its reported U.S. sales of SSSS as CEP sales. During the review period U&A France made sales to the United States through its U.S. based affiliates, AUSA, Rahns, Hood, and ASP, which resold the merchandise to unaffiliated customers. Therefore, because U&A France's U.S. sales were made by AUSA, Rahns, Hood and ASP after the subject merchandise was imported into the United States, it is appropriate to classify these sales as CEP sales. We calculated the CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. We based CEP on the packed ex-warehouse or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We also made deductions for the following movement expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act: foreign inland freight from plant to distribution warehouse, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight from port to warehouse, U.S. inland freight from warehouse/plant to the unaffiliated customer, U.S. warehouse expenses, other U.S. transportation expense, wharfage expenses, and customs duties. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses, inventory carrying costs, credit, warranty expenses, commissions, and other indirect selling expenses. For products that were further manufactured by ASP after importation, readjusted the starting price for all costs of further manufacturing in the United States, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act. In calculating the cost of further manufacturing for ASP, we relied upon the further manufacturing information provided by U&A France. We deducted the profit allocated to expenses listed under sections 772(d)(1) and (d)(2), in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on total revenues realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity (including further manufacturing costs), based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and home market in accordance with section 772(f). We also adjusted the starting price for billing adjustments, discounts, rebates, other revenues and freight revenue. Price-to-Constructed Value Comparisons In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we base NV on CV if we are unable to find a home market match of identical or similar merchandise that is not disregarded due to the cost test. For these preliminary results, we did not use CV for NV because we were able to find a home market match of identical or similar merchandise that was not disregarded due to the cost test under 19 CFR 351.405(a) for each product sold in the United States. Price-to-Price Comparisons For those product comparisons for which there were sales at prices above the COP, we based NV on prices to unaffiliated home market customers or prices to affiliated customers that were determined to be at arm's length. Where appropriate, we deducted discounts, rebates, credit expenses, warranty expenses, inland freight, inland insurance, and warehousing expense. We also adjusted the starting price for billing adjustments, freight revenue, other revenues, and direct selling expenses. We also made adjustments, where applicable, for home market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in CEP comparisons. We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Additionally, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B), we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. For reasons discussed in the “Level of Trade” section below, we allowed a CEP offset for comparisons made at different levels of trade. To calculate the CEP offset, we deducted the home market indirect selling expenses (less any offset of U.S. commissions) from NV for home market sales that were compared to U.S. CEP sales.We limited the home market indirect selling expense deduction by the amount of the indirect selling expenses deducted in calculating the CEP as required under section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV using sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade
(LOT)at the U.S. sales. *See* 19 CFR 351.412. The NV LOT is the level of the starting-price sale in the comparison market. For CEP sales it is the level of the constructed sales from the exporter to the importer. *See* 19 CFR 351.412. U&A France classified all of its U.S. sales as CEP and the Department's analysis found no indication that the sales were not CEP sales. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examine selling functions between the producer and the unaffiliated or affiliated customer (if the arm's-length test is passed) for home market sales, and between the producer and the affiliated customer for CEP sales. However, if the selected comparison market sales are at a different LOT than the CEP sales, and a consistent pattern of price differences is manifested between the sales on which NV is based and other home market sales at the same LOT as the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining a consistent pattern of price differences, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,* 62 FR 61731, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997). For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section 772(d) of the Act. *See Micron 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 home market, U&A France sells directly to the customer and through an affiliated service center, U&A FS. IUP sells directly to customers. U&A France reported three channels of distribution, two customer categories, and one level of trade. We found that, in the home market, U&A France preforms a variety of distinct selling functions including: Strategy planning and marketing, customer sales contact, production planning and order evaluation, advertising, warranty, technical service, administrative, and freight and delivery in both customer categories. *See* Section A Response of Ugine & ALZ France, Vol. 1, Appendix A-8 (November 19, 2004) (Appendix A-8). We examined the selling functions performed for the two customer categories and found there were no significant differences in selling functions performed. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the three home market channels of distribution to the two customer categories constitute one level of trade. U&A France reported four channels of distribution, three customer categories, and one level of trade in the U.S. market. U&A France's channels of distribution and customer categories within each channel are as follows:
(1)AUSA sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated end users and unaffiliated service centers/processors;
(2)AUSA sold subject merchandise to ASP with ASP sold to unaffiliated end users.
(3)AUSA sold subject merchandise imported from U&A France via Arcelor Canada to ASP which sold the subject merchandise to unaffiliated end users; and
(4)IUP sold merchandise to Rahns and Hood which sold to unaffiliated end users. *See* Appendix A-8. As explained in U&A France's Section A Response, U&A France performed very few selling activities for the U.S. Sales because most selling functions were performed by the U.S. sales affiliates (AUSA, Rahns, Hood, and ASP). We examined the selling functions performed and found that there were only minor differences with respect to the degree to which the U.S. affiliates performed those selling function in all channels. We preliminarily find that U&A Frances U.S. sales channels constitute one LOT. *See Memorandum to the File through Sean Carey, Program Manager, from Sebastian Wright, Analyst, Concerning Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France: Analysis Memorandum* , (August 1, 2005) ( *Analysis Memorandum* ). U&A France and its home market affiliates perform all home market selling activities. Selling functions for the U.S. market, as indicated above, are performed by ASUSA, Rahns and Hood. We compared the U.S. and home market LOTs and determined that, after eliminating from consideration selling functions performed by ASUSA (pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act), U&A France's home market sales are made at a different and more remote, LOT than its CEP sales. *See Analysis Memorandum.* We examined whether a LOT adjustment of CEP offset may be appropriate. In this case, U&A France sold at one LOT in the home market. Therefore, there is no information available to determine a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and the home market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, in accordance with the Department's normal methodology as described above. *See* 19 CFR 351.412(d). We do not have record information which would allow us to examine pricing patterns based on U&A France's sales of other products, and there are no other respondents or other record information on which such as analysis could be based. Accordingly, because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for making an LOT adjustment, but the LOT in the home market is at a more advanced state of distribution than the LOT of the CEP transactions, we made a CEP offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). This offset is equal to the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market not exceeding the amount of indirect selling expenses and commissions deducted from the U.S. price in accordance with section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. We note that in all prior administrative reviews of this order, where similar situations existed, we also granted a CEP offset. *See, e.g., Preliminary Results Fourth Review* at 47899; *See also Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 32573, 32576 (June 3, 2005). Current Conversion For purposes of the preliminary results, in accordance with section 773A of the Act, we made currency conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Assessment Calculation U&A France contends that the Department should include in the denominator of the Department's assessment calculation the value of subject merchandise entered for consumption into the United States, but first sold to customers outside of the United States during the POR. Specifically, U&A France proposes that in calculating the assessment rate, the Department should divide the total dumping duties calculated on U.S. sales by the sum of the entered value of the sales reported in the U.S. sales database plus the entered value of the sales entered for consumption but first sold to customers outside of the United States. According to U&A France, “{i}n cases where a respondent imports a product for consumption which is physically within the scope of the order at the time of entry and subsequently makes the first sales of this product to a customer outside the United States, it is the Department's practice to add the entered value associated with these sales to the denominator in the calculation of the assessment rate in order to avoid collecting antidumping duties on these non-subject sales. ” *See* Section A Supplemental, at page 3. U&A France contends that its position is supported by prior Department and court decisions. 7 7 *See Stainless Steel Sheet & Strip in Coils from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 67 FR 6490 (February 12, 2002) at Comment 15 ( *Mexinox 2002* ); *Stainless Steel Sheet & Strip in Coils from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 68 FR 6889 (February 11, 2003) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 15 ( *Mexinox 2003* ); *Stainless Steel Sheet & Strip in Coils from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 69 FR 6259 (February 10, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 19 ( *Mexinox 2004* ); *see also Torrington Co.* v. *United States* , 82 F.3d 1039, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The Petitioners counter that the Department's regulations direct the Department to calculate the assessment rate for each importer by dividing the dumping margin found on the subject merchandise examined by the entered value of such merchandise. *See* 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The Petitioners assert that the Department recognized that it would deviate from the methodology using the entered value of the U.S. sales made during the POR in only unusual situation. 8 They further contend that U&A France has not provided sufficient reason for the Department to deviate from the methodology mandated by 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The Petitioners assert that U&A France has not provided any evidence that using the entered value of the U.S. sales during the POR will result in a significant distortion of the assessment rate. Moreover, the Petitioners contend that the record is not clear as to who was the importer of record for the sales entered for consumption into the customs territory of the United States, but first sold outside the United States. According to the Petitioners, there is no basis for the Department to determine which importer's assessment calculation should have these sales included in the denominator. 8 *See Antidumping Duties, Countervailing Duties, Proposed Rule: Uruguay Round Agreement Act (URAA): Conformance* , 61 FR 7308, 7316-7317 (February 27, 1996). Based on the information available to the Department at this time, we have preliminarily included the value of these non-U.S., suspended sales in the denominator of the assessment calculations. As noted by U&A France, the Department has previously included the value of merchandise entered for consumption into the United States, but first sold outside of the United States, in the denominator of the importer specific assessment calculations. *See Mexinox 2002* ; *Mexinox 2003* ; and *Mexinox 2004.* In *Mexinox 2002* , we determined that it is appropriate to include the entered value of merchandise entered for consumption into the United States, but subsequently first sold outside of the United States into the denominator of the Department's importer specific assessment calculation to “facilitate the U.S. Customs Service's collection of antidumping duties on subject merchandise.” *See Mexinox 2002 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum* , at comment 15. Finally, we disagree with the Petitioners' assertion that we are unable to determine who is the importer of record from the record of this case. U&A France specifically states that U&A France is the importer of record for the sales entered for consumption, but subsequently first sold outside of the United States, at Appendix SA-2 of the supplemental questionnaire response dated March 22, 2005. Accordingly, the Department has preliminarily included the entered value of the merchandise which was imported for consumption into the United States, but subsequently first sold outside of the United States in the denominator of the importer specific assessment calculation. A more detailed discussion of this issue and the computer code which implements this decision is included in the Department's analysis memorandum. *See Analysis Memorandum.* Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily find that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From France Producer/manufacturer/exporter Weighted-average margin U&A France 11.11 percent. Duty Assessment Upon issuance of the final results of review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP within fifteen days of publication of the final results of review. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by these results and for future deposits of estimated duties. For duty assessment purposes, we calculated an importer-specific assessment rate by dividing the total dumping margins calculated for the U.S. sales to the importer by the sum of total entered value of these sales plus the entered value of subject merchandise entered for consumption but first sold outside of the United States. If the preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, this rate will be used for assessment of antidumping duties on all entries of the subject merchandise by that importer during the POR. Revocation of the Order On July 12, 2005, the United States International Trade Commission
(ITC)informed the Department that the revocation of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel sheet and strip from France would not likely lead to continuation of recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Accordingly, the Department will be revoking this antidumping duty order effective, July 27, 2004. Therefore, cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties are no longer required. Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculation performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of publication of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, 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 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 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* 19 CFR 351.213(h). Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under regulation 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 occured and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. These preliminary results of this administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 1, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 05-15639 Filed 8-5-05; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 20
Traces to 20 documents
CFR
- Sunset reviews under section 751(c) of the Act.§ 351.218
- Definitions.§ 351.102
- Access to business proprietary information.§ 351.305
- Administrative review of orders and suspension agreements under section 751(a)(1) of the Act.§ 351.213
- Filing, document identification, format, translation, service, and certification of documents.§ 351.303
- Time limits for submission of factual information.§ 351.301
- Assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties; provisional measures deposit cap; interest on certain overpayments and underpayments.§ 351.212
- Calculation of normal value of merchandise from nonmarket economy countries.§ 351.408
- Disclosure of calculations and procedures for the correction of ministerial errors.§ 351.224
- Written argument.§ 351.309
- Hearings.§ 351.310
- Calculation of export price and constructed export price; reimbursement of antidumping and countervailing duties.§ 351.402
- Review procedures.§ 351.221
- Differences in circumstances of sale§ 351.410
- In general.§ 351.401
- Sales used in calculating normal value; transactions between affiliated parties.§ 351.403
- Comparison of normal value with export price (constructed export price).§ 351.414
- Calculation of normal value based on constructed value.§ 351.405
- Levels of trade; adjustment for difference in level of trade; constructed export price offset.§ 351.412
U.S. Code
6 references not yet in our index
- 44 F. Supp. 2d 1310
- 113 F.3d 1220
- 43 F.3d 1442
- 117 F.3d 1401
- 243 F.3d 1301
- 82 F.3d 1039
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
Cites 26 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources