Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 42029-42032 [E5-3905]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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
