Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 42029-42032 [E5-3905]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2005 / Notices Countervailing Duty Proceedings None. Suspension Agreements None. During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under § 351.211 or a determination under § 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consist with FAG Italia v. United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed. Cir. 2002), as appropriate, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: July 15, 2005. Holly A. Kuga, Senior Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4 for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 05–14454 Filed 7–20–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–549–812] Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from Thailand. The period of review is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. This review covers imports of furfuryl alcohol from one producer/exporter. We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise have not been AGENCY: VerDate jul<14>2003 19:42 Jul 20, 2005 Jkt 205001 made at less than normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate entries of furfuryl alcohol from Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. without regard to antidumping duties. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Smith, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1276. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 25, 1995, the Department published an antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from Thailand. See Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Notice of Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination and Order, 60 FR 38035 (July 25, 1995). On December 12, 2002, the Department published the final results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from Thailand. See Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 67 FR 76380 (December 12, 2002) (‘‘FA First Review’’). On July 1, 2004, the Department published its Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 69 FR 39903 (July 1, 2004). On July 29, 2004, Penn Specialty Chemicals, Inc. (‘‘petitioner’’) requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Indorama Chemicals (Thailand), Ltd. (‘‘IRCT’’), a producer and exporter of furfuryl alcohol from Thailand. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), we published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on August 30, 2004. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 69 FR 52857 (August 30, 2004). The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. An antidumping duty questionnaire was sent to IRCT on September 10, 2004. We received a timely response from IRCT on October 17, 2004. On November 11, 2004, the petitioner submitted an allegation that IRCT made PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 42029 sales of the subject merchandise below the cost of production and requested that the Department initiate a sales– below-cost investigation. On November 12, 2004, IRCT submitted comments on the petitioner’s allegations. On November 18, 2004, the petitioner submitted rebuttal comments on IRCT’s original comments. We issued a supplemental questionnaire regarding IRCT’s responses to sections A, B, and C of the Department’s original questionnaire on December 8, 2004. On December 9, 2004, the Department initiated a sales below cost investigation of IRCT. See December 9, 2004, Memorandum from Team to Susan Kuhbach entitled ‘‘Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Indorama Chemicals (Thailand), Inc., ‘‘which is in the Department’s Central Records Unit, located in Room B–099 of the main Department building (‘‘CRU’’). We received a timely response from IRCT to the Department’s December 8, 2004, supplemental questionnaire on December 22, 2004. We received IRCT’s response to the Department’s cost questionnaire on January 18, 2005. We issued an additional supplemental questionnaire on February 10, 2005. On February 14, 2005, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), we published a notice extending the time limit for the completion of the preliminary results in this case by 31 days (i.e., until no later than May 4, 2005). See 70 FR 7469. We received a timely response to the second supplemental questionnaire from IRCT on February 22, 2005. On March 17, 2005, the petitioner submitted comments on IRCT’s response to the Department’s second supplemental questionnaire. On April 8, 2005, we issued a third supplemental questionnaire to IRCT. On April 18, 2005, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we published a notice extending the time limit for the completion of the preliminary results in this case by 88 days (i.e., until no later than August 1, 2005). See 70 FR 20103. On April 22, 2005, we received a timely response from IRCT to the Department’s April 8, 2005, supplemental questionnaire. We issued a fourth supplemental questionnaire to IRCT on June 6, 2005. We received a timely response on the fourth supplemental questionnaire from IRCT on June 14, 2005. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order is furfuryl alcohol (C4H3OCH2OH). Furfuryl alcohol is a E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1 42030 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2005 / Notices primary alcohol, and is colorless or pale yellow in appearance. It is used in the manufacture of resins and as a wetting agent and solvent for coating resins, nitrocellulose, cellulose acetate, and other soluble dyes. The product subject to this order is classifiable under subheading 2932.13.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of furfuryl alcohol by IRCT to the United States were made at less than normal value (‘‘NV’’), we compared the export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice, below. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted– average sales prices of the foreign like product, where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section of this notice. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by IRCT covered by the description in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In making product comparisons, consistent with the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 60 FR 22557 (May 8, 1995) and Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Notice of Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination and Order, 60 FR 38035 (July 25, 1995) (collectively ‘‘LTFV Final’’), we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by IRCT. Export Price We calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because the merchandise was sold to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the packed delivered, freight–on-board, cash–infreight, or the delivery–duty paid price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the VerDate jul<14>2003 19:42 Jul 20, 2005 Jkt 205001 starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included foreign inland freight, country of manufacture inland insurance, brokerage and handling, international freight, and marine insurance. It is normally the Department’s practice to confirm that the duty drawback adjustment claimed by the respondent meets the Department’s two–pronged criteria for determining whether the duty drawback adjustment is appropriate. We have determined that only one of the reported inputs used in the production of furfuryl alcohol meets the two–pronged criteria. Therefore, we made an adjustment to the starting price for duty drawback to account for import duties paid on the importation of a single input used in the production of the subject merchandise. For an in– depth explanation of these changes, see Memorandum from Case Analyst to File, ‘‘Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd.,’’ (‘‘Prelim Calc Memo’’) dated August 1, 2005, available in the Department’s CRU. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the volume of IRCT’s home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.404(b)(2) of the Department’s regulations. Because IRCT’s aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. B. Cost of Production As discussed in the ‘‘Background’’ section above there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that IRCT made sales of the subject merchandise in its comparison market at prices below the cost of production (‘‘COP’’), as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we requested that IRCT respond to section D, the cost of production/constructed value section of the questionnaire. We conducted the COP analysis as described below: 1. Calculation of COP In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of IRCT’s cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 administrative expenses (‘‘G&A’’), interest expenses, and home market packing costs. We relied on the COP information provided by IRCT, except in the following instances. IRCT reported that it did not include in its calculated G&A the cost IRCT incurred for the depreciation of certain assets. It is the Department’s normal practice to include the depreciation figure for assets in a company’s reported G&A expenses if these assets relate to the general operations of the company. Therefore, we have recalculated IRCT’s reported G&A expenses to include these costs. See Prelim Calc Memo. 2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices On a product–specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted– average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether the sales prices were below the COP. The prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges or indirect selling expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act, whether such sales were made (1) within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and (2) at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. 3. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent’s sales of a given product are made at prices below the COP, we do not disregard any below–cost sales of that product because we determine that in such instances the below–cost sales were not made in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more of a respondent’s sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we determine that in such instances the below cost sales represent ‘‘substantial quantities’’ within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales are made at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. We found that, for all products, less than 20 percent of the comparison market sales were at prices less than the COP. Therefore, we did not disregard any home market sales in determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1). C. Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2005 / Notices sales at the same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the EP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut–toLength Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e., the ‘‘chain of distribution’’),1 including selling functions,2 class of customer (‘‘customer category’’), and the level of selling expenses for each sale. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales, we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, et. al., 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314–1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming this methodology). When the Department is unable to match U.S. EP sales to sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales to a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practical, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. IRCT reported one level of trade in the home market and one level of trade in the U.S. market. IRCT reported making sales only to end–users in the home market. In the United States, IRCT reported that it made sales to a trading company. We examined the information IRCT reported regarding its marketing process for making the reported comparison market and U.S. sales, including the type and level of selling activities performed and customer categories. Specifically, we considered the extent to which sales process, freight 1 The marketing process in the United States and comparison market begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final user or consumer. The chain of distribution between the two may have many or few links, and the respondent’s sales occur somewhere along this chain. 2 Selling functions associated with a particular chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have organized the common selling functions into four major categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty services. VerDate jul<14>2003 19:42 Jul 20, 2005 Jkt 205001 services, warehouse/inventory maintenance, and warranty services varied with respect to the different customer categories (i.e., distributors and end users). Based on our analysis, we found that the single level of trade in the United States is identical to the single level of trade in the comparison market. Thus, we preliminarily find that a LOT adjustment for IRCT is not warranted. D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices We calculated NV based on the delivered prices to unaffiliated customers or prices to affiliated customers that we determined to be at arm’s length. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made deductions for inland freight and inland insurance. Furthermore, where appropriate, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (‘‘COS’’) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on comparison market sales (credit expenses), and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses). We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. Preliminary Results of the Review We preliminarily find that the following dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. 42031 Cash Deposit Rates The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of furfuryl alcohol from Thailand 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 this administrative review (except no cash deposit will be required if its weighted–average margin is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not covered in this review, 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 original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, any prior review, or the original less than fair value investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 7.82 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established in the LTFV Final. Public Comment Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. A hearing, if requested, will Manufacturer/Exporter Margin be 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the first business day Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. 0.00 thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the Assessment Rates case and rebuttal briefs. Interested Upon completion of this parties may submit case briefs within 30 administrative review, the Department days of the date of publication of this will determine, and U.S. Customs and notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, limited to issues raised in the case antidumping duties on all appropriate briefs, may be filed not later than 35 entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), days after the date of publication of this the Department calculates an notice. Parties who submit case briefs or assessment rate for each importer (or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are customer) of the subject merchandise. requested to submit with each argument Upon issuance of the final results of this (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a administrative review, if any importer brief summary of the argument with an (or customer)-specific assessment rates electronic version included. calculated in the final results are above The Department will issue the final de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), results of this administrative review, the Department will issue appraisement including the results of its analysis of instructions directly to CBP to assess issues raised in any such written briefs antidumping duties on appropriate or hearing, within 120 days of entries. publication of these preliminary results. The Department will issue Notification to Importers appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of This notice also serves as a publication of the final results of this preliminary reminder to importers of review. their responsibility under 19 CFR PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1 42032 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2005 / Notices 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 results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 15, 2005. Susan Kuhbach, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5–3905 Filed 7–20–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–863] Honey from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 31, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register (70 FR 4818) a notice announcing the initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is December 1, 2003, to November 30, 2004. On June 22, 2005, petitioners and Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd. (Wuhan Bee) withdrew their requests for an administrative review of Wuhan Bee. This review is now being rescinded for Wuhan Bee. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anya Naschak or Kristina Boughton, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone; (202) 482–6375 and (202) 482–8173, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On December 10, 2001, the Department of Commerce published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order covering honey from the PRC. See Notice of Amended Final VerDate jul<14>2003 19:42 Jul 20, 2005 Jkt 205001 Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Honey from the People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 63670 (December 10, 2001). On December 1, 2004, the Department published a Notice of Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 69 FR 69889. On December 30, 2004, the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, petitioners), requested, in accordance with section 351.213(b) of the Department’s regulations, an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC for 19 companies covering the period December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004. On December 30, 2004, and January 3, 2005, nine Chinese companies requested an administrative review of their respective companies. The Department notes that petitioners’ request covered these nine companies as well. On January 31, 2005, the Department initiated an administrative review of 19 Chinese companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 4818 (January 31, 2005). On March 29, 2005, the Department rescinded this review with respect to seven companies because petitioners, the only party to request a review for these companies, withdrew their request for review. See Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Honey from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 15836 (March 29, 2005). On May 25, 2005, the Department rescinded this review with respect to Anhui Native Produce Import and Export Corp. and Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Native Produce and Animal By–Products Import and Export Corporation because petitioners, the only party to request a review for these companies, withdrew their request for review. See Honey from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 30082 (May 25, 2005). On June 22, 2005, petitioners filed a letter withdrawing their request for review of Wuhan Bee (respondent), and on the same day, respondent also filed a letter withdrawing its request for an administrative review. Both parties originally requested a review of Wuhan Bee and both parties requested that the Department withdraw the review despite the request coming after the 90– day withdrawal period because both parties have withdrawn their original PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 requests for review and because the Department has not yet committed substantial resources to reviewing Wuhan Bee. Further, both parties stated that the Department may rescind a review after the 90–day deadline, according to its regulations, when it determines it is reasonable. Respondent further noted that there are no other Wuhan Bee importers or other interested parties that could pose any valid objection to the rescission of the review. Rescission of Review The applicable regulation, 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), states that if a party that requested an administrative review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review, the Secretary will rescind the review. It further states that the Secretary may extend this time limit if the Secretary finds it reasonable to do so. Although petitioners and respondent withdrew their review requests with respect to Wuhan Bee after the 90–day deadline, the Department finds it reasonable to extend the deadline for parties to withdraw their request for review with respect to Wuhan Bee in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). The Department finds it reasonable to extend the withdrawal deadline with respect to Wuhan Bee because the Department has not yet committed substantial resources to reviewing Wuhan Bee in the instant review and because both parties who requested the review have subsequently withdrawn their requests. Therefore, we are partially rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC covering the period December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004, with respect to Wuhan Bee. Assessment The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For those companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of this notice. Notification of Interested Parties This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 139 (Thursday, July 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42029-42032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3905]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-812]


Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY:  Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from Thailand. 
The period of review is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. This 
review covers imports of furfuryl alcohol from one producer/exporter.
    We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise have 
not been made at less than normal value. If these preliminary results 
are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection to liquidate entries of furfuryl alcohol from 
Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. without regard to antidumping 
duties. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Smith, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-1276.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 25, 1995, the Department published an antidumping duty 
order on furfuryl alcohol from Thailand. See Furfuryl Alcohol from 
Thailand: Notice of Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination and 
Order, 60 FR 38035 (July 25, 1995). On December 12, 2002, the 
Department published the final results of the first administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from Thailand. 
See Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review, 67 FR 76380 (December 12, 2002) 
(``FA First Review'').
    On July 1, 2004, the Department published its Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 69 FR 39903 (July 1, 
2004). On July 29, 2004, Penn Specialty Chemicals, Inc. 
(``petitioner'') requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of Indorama Chemicals (Thailand), Ltd. 
(``IRCT''), a producer and exporter of furfuryl alcohol from Thailand.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), we published a notice of 
initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on August 30, 
2004. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 69 FR 52857 (August 30, 2004). The period of 
review (``POR'') is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004.
    An antidumping duty questionnaire was sent to IRCT on September 10, 
2004. We received a timely response from IRCT on October 17, 2004. On 
November 11, 2004, the petitioner submitted an allegation that IRCT 
made sales of the subject merchandise below the cost of production and 
requested that the Department initiate a sales-below-cost 
investigation. On November 12, 2004, IRCT submitted comments on the 
petitioner's allegations. On November 18, 2004, the petitioner 
submitted rebuttal comments on IRCT's original comments.
    We issued a supplemental questionnaire regarding IRCT's responses 
to sections A, B, and C of the Department's original questionnaire on 
December 8, 2004. On December 9, 2004, the Department initiated a sales 
below cost investigation of IRCT. See December 9, 2004, Memorandum from 
Team to Susan Kuhbach entitled ``Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of 
Production for Indorama Chemicals (Thailand), Inc., `` which is in the 
Department's Central Records Unit, located in Room B-099 of the main 
Department building (``CRU''). We received a timely response from IRCT 
to the Department's December 8, 2004, supplemental questionnaire on 
December 22, 2004.
    We received IRCT's response to the Department's cost questionnaire 
on January 18, 2005. We issued an additional supplemental questionnaire 
on February 10, 2005. On February 14, 2005, in accordance with section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), we 
published a notice extending the time limit for the completion of the 
preliminary results in this case by 31 days (i.e., until no later than 
May 4, 2005). See 70 FR 7469. We received a timely response to the 
second supplemental questionnaire from IRCT on February 22, 2005. On 
March 17, 2005, the petitioner submitted comments on IRCT's response to 
the Department's second supplemental questionnaire. On April 8, 2005, 
we issued a third supplemental questionnaire to IRCT. On April 18, 
2005, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we published 
a notice extending the time limit for the completion of the preliminary 
results in this case by 88 days (i.e., until no later than August 1, 
2005). See 70 FR 20103. On April 22, 2005, we received a timely 
response from IRCT to the Department's April 8, 2005, supplemental 
questionnaire. We issued a fourth supplemental questionnaire to IRCT on 
June 6, 2005. We received a timely response on the fourth supplemental 
questionnaire from IRCT on June 14, 2005.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is furfuryl alcohol 
(C4H3OCH2OH). Furfuryl alcohol is a

[[Page 42030]]

primary alcohol, and is colorless or pale yellow in appearance. It is 
used in the manufacture of resins and as a wetting agent and solvent 
for coating resins, nitrocellulose, cellulose acetate, and other 
soluble dyes.
    The product subject to this order is classifiable under subheading 
2932.13.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
proceeding is dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of furfuryl alcohol by IRCT to the 
United States were made at less than normal value (``NV''), we compared 
the export price (``EP'') to NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' 
and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of 
individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average sales prices of 
the foreign like product, where there were sales made in the ordinary 
course of trade, as discussed in the ``Normal Value'' section of this 
notice.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by IRCT covered by the description in the ``Scope of 
the Order'' section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In making 
product comparisons, consistent with the Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 60 FR 22557 (May 8, 
1995) and Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Notice of Amended Final 
Antidumping Duty Determination and Order, 60 FR 38035 (July 25, 1995) 
(collectively ``LTFV Final''), we matched foreign like products based 
on the physical characteristics reported by IRCT.

Export Price

    We calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act 
because the merchandise was sold to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States prior to importation by the exporter or producer 
outside the United States and because constructed export price 
methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the packed 
delivered, freight-on-board, cash-in-freight, or the delivery-duty paid 
price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made 
deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included foreign 
inland freight, country of manufacture inland insurance, brokerage and 
handling, international freight, and marine insurance.
    It is normally the Department's practice to confirm that the duty 
drawback adjustment claimed by the respondent meets the Department's 
two-pronged criteria for determining whether the duty drawback 
adjustment is appropriate. We have determined that only one of the 
reported inputs used in the production of furfuryl alcohol meets the 
two-pronged criteria. Therefore, we made an adjustment to the starting 
price for duty drawback to account for import duties paid on the 
importation of a single input used in the production of the subject 
merchandise. For an in-depth explanation of these changes, see 
Memorandum from Case Analyst to File, ``Preliminary Results Calculation 
Memorandum for Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd.,'' (``Prelim Calc 
Memo'') dated August 1, 2005, available in the Department's CRU.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability
    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared the volume of IRCT's home market sales of the foreign like 
product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.404(b)(2) of the Department's regulations. 
Because IRCT's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign 
like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of 
U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home 
market was viable.
B. Cost of Production
    As discussed in the ``Background'' section above there were 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that IRCT made sales of the 
subject merchandise in its comparison market at prices below the cost 
of production (``COP''), as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we requested 
that IRCT respond to section D, the cost of production/constructed 
value section of the questionnaire.
    We conducted the COP analysis as described below:
1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of IRCT's cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative 
expenses (``G&A''), interest expenses, and home market packing costs. 
We relied on the COP information provided by IRCT, except in the 
following instances.
    IRCT reported that it did not include in its calculated G&A the 
cost IRCT incurred for the depreciation of certain assets. It is the 
Department's normal practice to include the depreciation figure for 
assets in a company's reported G&A expenses if these assets relate to 
the general operations of the company. Therefore, we have recalculated 
IRCT's reported G&A expenses to include these costs. See Prelim Calc 
Memo.
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product during 
the POR, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether the sales prices were below the COP. The prices were 
exclusive of any applicable movement charges or indirect selling 
expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(1)(A) of the Act, whether such sales were made (1) within an 
extended period of time in substantial quantities, and (2) at prices 
which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time.
3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of the respondent's sales of a given product are made at prices 
below the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were 
not made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, 
we determine that in such instances the below cost sales represent 
``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also 
determine whether such sales are made at prices which would not permit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
    We found that, for all products, less than 20 percent of the 
comparison market sales were at prices less than the COP. Therefore, we 
did not disregard any home market sales in determining NV, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1).
C. Level of Trade
    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on

[[Page 42031]]

sales at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP. Sales are made at 
different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in 
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for 
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.; 
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 
FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the 
comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than 
the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market 
(i.e., the ``chain of distribution''),\1\ including selling 
functions,\2\ class of customer (``customer category''), and the level 
of selling expenses for each sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The marketing process in the United States and comparison 
market begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final 
user or consumer. The chain of distribution between the two may have 
many or few links, and the respondent's sales occur somewhere along 
this chain.
    \2\ Selling functions associated with a particular chain of 
distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a 
particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we 
have organized the common selling functions into four major 
categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and 
delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty 
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying 
levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales, we consider the 
starting prices before any adjustments. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. 
United States, et. al., 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 
(affirming this methodology).
    When the Department is unable to match U.S. EP sales to sales of 
the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as 
the EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a 
different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales to a 
different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it 
practical, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the 
Act.
    IRCT reported one level of trade in the home market and one level 
of trade in the U.S. market. IRCT reported making sales only to end-
users in the home market. In the United States, IRCT reported that it 
made sales to a trading company. We examined the information IRCT 
reported regarding its marketing process for making the reported 
comparison market and U.S. sales, including the type and level of 
selling activities performed and customer categories. Specifically, we 
considered the extent to which sales process, freight services, 
warehouse/inventory maintenance, and warranty services varied with 
respect to the different customer categories (i.e., distributors and 
end users). Based on our analysis, we found that the single level of 
trade in the United States is identical to the single level of trade in 
the comparison market. Thus, we preliminarily find that a LOT 
adjustment for IRCT is not warranted.
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
    We calculated NV based on the delivered prices to unaffiliated 
customers or prices to affiliated customers that we determined to be at 
arm's length. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, 
we made deductions for inland freight and inland insurance.
    Furthermore, where appropriate, we made adjustments for differences 
in circumstances of sale (``COS'') in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 by deducting direct 
selling expenses incurred on comparison market sales (credit expenses), 
and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses). We deducted 
home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance 
with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily find that the following dumping margin exists for 
the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Manufacturer/Exporter                        Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd..............................     0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will 
determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each 
importer (or customer) of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the 
final results of this administrative review, if any importer (or 
customer)-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are 
above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will 
issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping 
duties on appropriate entries.
    The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of 
this review.

Cash Deposit Rates

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of furfuryl alcohol from Thailand 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 this 
administrative review (except no cash deposit will be required if its 
weighted-average margin is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent); 
(2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not covered in 
this review, 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 original 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer 
is a firm covered in this review, any prior review, or the original 
less than fair value investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 7.82 
percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV Final.

Public Comment

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. A hearing, if requested, will be 37 days 
after the publication of this notice, or the first business day 
thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those 
raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Interested parties may submit 
case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of 
publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal 
briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument 
(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument 
with an electronic version included.
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of publication of these 
preliminary results.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR

[[Page 42032]]

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 results in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 15, 2005.
Susan Kuhbach,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-3905 Filed 7-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S