Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico, 54013-54017 [E5-4974]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54013-54017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-4974]



[[Page 54013]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-802]


Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on gray portland cement and clinker from Mexico. 
The review covers exports of subject merchandise to the United States 
during the period August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004, from one firm, 
CEMEX, S.A. de C.V., and its affiliate, GCC Cemento, S.A. de C.V. We 
have preliminarily determined that sales were made below normal value 
during the period of review.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issues, and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 13, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hermes Pinilla or Jeffrey Frank, 
Office of AD/CVD Operations 5, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
3477, (202) 482-0090, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 3, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register the Notice of Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 
Finding, or Suspended Investigation concerning the antidumping duty 
order on gray portland cement and clinker (cement) from Mexico (69 FR 
46496). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the petitioner, the 
Southern Tier Cement Committee (STCC), requested a review of CEMEX, 
S.A. de C.V. (CEMEX), and CEMEX's affiliate, GCC Cemento, S.A. de C.V. 
(GCCC). In addition, CEMEX and GCCC requested reviews of their own 
sales during the period of review (POR). On September 22, 2004, the 
Department published in the Federal Register the Notice of Initiation 
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Request for Revocation in Part (69 FR 56745) in which it initiated an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cement from 
Mexico. The POR is August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. We are 
conducting a review of CEMEX and GCCC pursuant to section 751 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of the Order

    The products subject to this order include gray portland cement and 
clinker. Gray portland cement is a hydraulic cement and the primary 
component of concrete. Clinker, an intermediate material product 
produced when manufacturing cement, has no use other than of being 
ground into finished cement. Gray portland cement is currently 
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) item number 2523.29, and cement clinker is currently 
classifiable under HTSUS item number 2523.10. Gray portland cement has 
also been entered under HTSUS item number 2523.90 as ``other hydraulic 
cements.'' Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this 
proceeding is dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified certain home-
market information submitted by CEMEX using standard verification 
procedures, including an examination of relevant sales and financial 
records and the selection of original documentation containing relevant 
information. For further details, please see the Department's 
verification report dated August 30, 2005, on file in the Central 
Records Unit (CRU), Room B-099 of the main Department building.

Collapsing

    Section 771(33) of the Act defines when two or more parties will be 
considered affiliated for purposes of an antidumping analysis. 
Moreover, the regulations describe when the Department will treat two 
or more affiliated producers as a single entity (i.e., ``collapse'' the 
firms) for purposes of calculating a dumping margin (see 19 CFR 
351.401(f)). In previous administrative reviews of this order, we 
analyzed the record evidence and collapsed CEMEX and GCCC in accordance 
with the regulations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, e.g., Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Gray Portland Cement and 
Clinker From Mexico, 69 FR 34647, 34648 (June 22, 2004). No changes 
were made in the final results of review (see Gray Portland Cement 
and Clinker From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Review, 
69 FR 77989 (December 29, 2004)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regulations state that we will treat two or more affiliated 
producers as a single entity where those producers have production 
facilities for similar or identical products that would not require 
substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure 
manufacturing priorities and we conclude that there is a significant 
potential for the manipulation of price or production. In identifying a 
significant potential for the manipulation of price or production, the 
factors we may consider include the following: (i) the level of common 
ownership; (ii) the extent to which managerial employees or board 
members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an affiliated 
firm; (iii) whether operations are intertwined, such as through the 
sharing of sales information, involvement in production and pricing 
decisions, the sharing of facilities or employees, or significant 
transactions between the affiliated producers. See 19 CFR 351.401(f).
    Having reviewed the current record, we found that the factual 
information underlying our decision to collapse these two entities has 
not changed from previous administrative reviews. See ``Collapsing 
CEMEX, S.A., de C.V. and GCC Cemento, S.A. de C.V. for the Current 
Administrative Review,'' dated June 7, 2005. CEMEX's indirect ownership 
of GCCC exceeds five percent; therefore, these two companies are 
affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act. In addition, both 
CEMEX and GCCC satisfy the criteria for treatment of affiliated parties 
as a single entity described at 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1): both producers 
have production facilities for similar and identical products such that 
substantial retooling of their production facilities would not be 
necessary to restructure manufacturing priorities. Consequently, any 
minor retooling required could be accomplished swiftly and with 
relative ease.
    We also find that a significant potential for manipulation of 
prices and production exists as outlined under 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2). 
CEMEX owns indirectly a substantial percentage of GCCC. Also, CEMEX's 
managers or directors sit on the board of directors of GCCC and its 
affiliated companies. Accordingly, CEMEX's percentage ownership of GCCC 
and the interlocking boards of directors give rise to a significant 
potential for affecting GCCC's pricing and production

[[Page 54014]]

decisions. Therefore, we have collapsed CEMEX and GCCC into one entity 
and calculated a single weighted-average margin using the information 
the firms provided in this review.

Constructed Export Price

    Both CEMEX and GCCC reported constructed export price (CEP) sales. 
We calculated CEP based on delivered prices to unaffiliated customers 
in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Where appropriate, we 
made adjustments to the starting price for discounts, rebates, and 
billing adjustments. In accordance with section 772(d) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.402(b), we deducted those expenses, including inventory 
carrying costs, that were associated with commercial activities in the 
United States and related to the sale to an unaffiliated purchaser. We 
also made deductions for foreign brokerage and handling, foreign inland 
freight, U.S. inland freight and insurance, U.S. warehousing expenses, 
U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. duties pursuant to section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Finally, we made an adjustment for CEP profit 
in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act\2\. No other 
adjustments to CEP were claimed or allowed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As a result of our findings at verification, we made an 
adjustment to the information CEMEX provided concerning its U.S. 
sales which affects the calculation of constructed export price 
profit. Specifically, while verifying indirect selling expenses 
CEMEX incurred in Mexico for sales to the United States, we found 
that CEMEX did not account for or claim a portion of its corporate 
selling expenses attributable to U.S. sales. For the preliminary 
results, we made an adjustment to the amount CEMEX claimed for 
indirect selling expenses incurred in Mexico for sales to the United 
States to correct for this omission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to subject merchandise to which value was added in the 
United States prior to sale to unaffiliated U.S. customers (i.e., 
cement that was imported and further-processed into finished concrete 
by U.S. affiliates of foreign exporters), we preliminarily determine 
that the special rule under section 772(e) of the Act for merchandise 
with value added after importation is applicable.
    Section 772(e) of the Act provides that, where the subject 
merchandise is imported by a person affiliated with the exporter or 
producer and the value added in the United States by the affiliated 
person is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject 
merchandise, we will determine the CEP for such merchandise using the 
price of identical or other subject merchandise if there is a 
sufficient quantity of sales to provide a reasonable basis for 
comparison and we determine that the use of such sales is appropriate. 
The regulations at 19 CFR 351.402(c)(2) provide that normally we will 
determine that the value added in the United States by the affiliated 
person is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject 
merchandise if we estimate the value added to be at least 65 percent of 
the price charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser for the 
merchandise as sold in the United States. Normally, we will estimate 
the value added based on the difference between the price charged to 
the first unaffiliated purchaser for the merchandise as sold in the 
United States and the price paid for the subject merchandise by the 
affiliated person. We will base this determination normally on averages 
of the prices and the value added to the subject merchandise. If there 
is not a sufficient quantity of such sales or if we determine that 
using the price of identical or other subject merchandise is not 
appropriate, we may use any other reasonable basis to determine the 
CEP. See section 772(e) of the Act.
    During the course of this administrative review, the respondent 
submitted information which allowed us to determine whether, in 
accordance with section 772(e) of the Act, the value added in the 
United States by its U.S. affiliates is likely to exceed substantially 
the value of the subject merchandise. To determine whether the value 
added is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject 
merchandise, we estimated the value added based on the difference 
between the averages of the prices charged to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser for the merchandise as sold in the United States and the 
averages of the prices paid for subject merchandise by the affiliate. 
Based on this analysis, we estimate that the value added was at least 
65 percent of the price the respondent charged to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser for the merchandise as sold in the United 
States. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the value added is 
likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise. 
Also, the record indicates that there is a sufficient quantity of 
subject merchandise to provide a reasonable and appropriate basis for 
comparison. Accordingly, for purposes of determining dumping margins 
for the further-manufactured sales, we have applied the preliminary 
weighted-average margin reflecting the rate we calculated for sales of 
identical or other subject merchandise sold to unaffiliated purchasers.

Normal Value

A. Comparisons

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating 
normal value, we compared the respondent's volume of home-market sales 
of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because 
the respondent'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. Therefore, we have based normal value on home-market 
sales.
    During the POR, the respondent sold Type II LA and Type V LA cement 
in the United States. The statute expresses a preference for matching 
U.S. sales to identical merchandise in the home market. See section 
771(16) of the Act. The respondent sold cement produced as CPC 30 R, 
CPC 40, CPO 30, CPO 40, and CPO30R BRA cement in the home market. We 
have attempted to match the subject merchandise to identical 
merchandise sold in the home market. In situations where identical 
product types cannot be matched, we have attempted to match the subject 
merchandise to sales of similar merchandise in the home market. See 
sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 771(16) of the Act.
    We were able to find home-market sales of identical and similar 
merchandise to which we could match sales of Type II LA and Type V LA 
cement sold in the U.S. market. In the three most recent administrative 
reviews of this proceeding, we determined that CPO 40 cement produced 
and sold in the home market is the identical match to Type V LA cement 
sold in the United States. See, e.g., Gray Portland Cement and Clinker 
From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
67 FR 12518 (March 19, 2002), and the accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 7. We have reviewed the information on the record 
and have determined that CPO 40 cement produced and sold in the home 
market is the identical match to Type V LA cement sold in the United 
States during this review period. If we could not find an identical 
match to the cement types sold in the United States in the same month 
in which the U.S. sale was made or during the contemporaneous period, 
we based normal value on similar merchandise.

[[Page 54015]]

    During the POR, GCCC had sales of Type II LA cement in the United 
States and asserted that the merchandise it sells in the home market as 
CPO30R BRA cement is identical to Type II LA cement. We have reviewed 
the information on the record of this review and, based on our 
analysis, we have determined that GCCC's sales of CPO30R BRA cement in 
the home market were made outside the ordinary course of trade. See 
``Ordinary Course of Trade'' section below.
    In the 2000/2001 administrative review of this proceeding, we 
determined that the chemical and physical characteristics of CPO 40 
cement produced and sold in Mexico are most similar to Type II LA 
cement sold in the United States. We have reviewed the information on 
the record of this POR and have determined that it is appropriate to 
match sales of CPO 40 cement produced and sold in Mexico to all sales 
of Type II LA sold in the United States.
    Further, in accordance with section 771(16)(B) of the Act, we find 
that both bulk and bagged cement are produced in the same country and 
by the same producer as the types sold in the United States, both bulk 
and bagged cement are like the types sold in the United States in 
component materials and in the purposes for which used, and both bulk 
and bagged cement are approximately equal in commercial value to the 
types sold in the United States. The questionnaire responses submitted 
by the respondent indicate that, with the exception of packaging, sales 
of cement in bulk and sales of cement in bags are physically identical 
and both are used in the production of concrete. Also, because there is 
no difference in the cost of production between cement sold in bulk or 
in bagged form, both are approximately equal in commercial value. See 
CEMEX's and GCCC's responses to the Department's original and 
supplemental questionnaires dated November 30, 2004, December 9, 2004, 
March 31, 2005, and April 8, 2005. Therefore, we find that matching the 
U.S. merchandise which is sold in both bulk and bag to the foreign like 
product sold in either bulk or bag is appropriate.

B. Ordinary Course of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act requires the Department to base 
normal value on ``the price at which the foreign like product is first 
sold (or in the absence of a sale, offered for sale) for consumption in 
the exporting country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the 
ordinary course of trade.'' Ordinary course of trade is defined as 
``the conditions and practices which, for a reasonable time prior to 
the exportation of the subject merchandise, have been normal in the 
trade under consideration with respect to merchandise of the same class 
or kind.'' See section 771(15) of the Act.
    In the instant review, we analyzed home-market sales of CPO30R BRA 
cement. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we based our 
examination on the totality of circumstances surrounding the 
respondent's sales in Mexico of CPO30R BRA cement, and we find that the 
respondent's home-market sales of this product made during the instant 
POR are outside the ordinary course of trade. See memorandum from Minoo 
Hatten to Laurie Parkhill, entitled ``Ordinary-Course-of-Trade Analysis 
for the Preliminary Results of the 2003/2004 Administrative Review of 
the Antidumping Duty Order on Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from 
Mexico,'' dated August 30, 2005.
    Consequently, we have disregarded the respondent's sales of CPO30R 
BRA cement in Mexico and, as in previous reviews, matched sales of CPO 
40 cement produced and sold in Mexico to sales of Type II LA sold in 
the United States. See ``Comparisons'' section above.

C. Arm's-Length Sales

    To test whether sales to affiliated customers were made at arm's 
length, we compared the prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated 
customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, 
discounts, and packing. Where the price to the affiliated party was, on 
average, within a range of 98 to102 percent of the price of the same or 
comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that 
the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See 
Modification Concerning Affiliated Party Sales in the Comparison 
Market, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). Consistent with 19 CFR 
351.403, we only included in our margin analysis those sales to 
affiliated parties that were made at arm's length.

D. Cost of Production

    The petitioner alleged on December 29, 2004, that the respondent 
sold cement in the home market at prices below the cost of production 
(COP). Upon examining the allegation, we determined that the petitioner 
had provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the CEMEX 
and GCCC sold cement in Mexico at prices below the COP. Therefore, 
pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP 
investigation to determine whether CEMEX and GCCC made home-market 
sales of cement during the POR at below-cost prices. See the memorandum 
from Mark Ross to Laurie Parkhill entitled ``Gray Portland Cement and 
Clinker from Mexico: Request to Initiate Cost Investigation in the 
2003/2004 Review,'' dated February 18, 2005.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed 
in producing cement plus amounts for home-market selling, general, and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses. We used the home-market sales data and 
COP information provided by CEMEX and GCCC in their questionnaire 
responses.
    After calculating the weighted-average COP and in accordance with 
section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we tested whether CEMEX's and GCCC's 
home-market sales were made at prices below the COP within an extended 
period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices 
permitted recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We 
compared the COP appropriate to the home-market prices less any 
applicable direct selling expenses, movement charges, discounts and 
rebates, and indirect selling expenses.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, if less than 20 
percent of CEMEX's and GCCC's sales of a certain type of cement were at 
prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of 
that product because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial 
quantities within an extended period of time. If 20 percent or more of 
CEMEX's and GCCC's sales of a certain type during the POR were at 
prices less than the COP, such below-cost sales were made in 
substantial quantities within an extended period of time pursuant to 
sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. Based on comparisons of home-
market prices to the appropriate weighted-average COP for the POR, we 
determined that below-cost sales were not made in substantial 
quantities within an extended period of time, and, therefore, we did 
not disregard any below-cost sales.

E. Adjustments to Normal Value

    Where appropriate, we adjusted home-market prices for discounts, 
rebates, packing, handling revenue, interest revenue, and billing 
adjustments to the invoice price. In addition, we adjusted the starting 
price for inland freight, inland insurance, and warehousing expenses. 
We also deducted home-market direct selling expenses from the home-
market price and home-market indirect selling expenses as a CEP-offset 
adjustment

[[Page 54016]]

(see Level of Trade/CEP Offset section below). In addition, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home-market 
packing costs from and added U.S. packing costs to normal value.
    Section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act directs us to make an 
adjustment to normal value to account for differences in the physical 
characteristics of merchandise where similar products are compared. The 
regulations at 19 CFR 351.411(b) direct us to consider differences in 
variable costs associated with the physical differences in the 
merchandise. Where we matched U.S. sales of subject merchandise to 
similar models in the home market, we adjusted for differences in 
merchandise.

F. Level of Trade/CEP Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine normal value based on sales in the home 
market at the same level of trade as the CEP. The home-market level of 
trade is that of the starting-price sales in the home market or, when 
normal value is based on constructed value, that of sales from which we 
derive SG&A expenses and profit. For CEP, it is the level of the 
constructed sale from the exporter to an affiliated importer after the 
deductions required under section 772(d) of the Act (the CEP level).
    To determine whether home-market sales are at a different level of 
trade than CEP level, we examine stages in the marketing process and 
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer 
and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different level of trade and the difference affects price 
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price 
differences between the sales on which normal value is based and 
comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export 
transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the normal-value 
level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is 
no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between 
normal value and CEP level affects price comparability, we adjust 
normal value under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset 
provision). See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 
61731, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997).
    With respect to U.S. sales (respondent reported CEP sales in the 
U.S. market), we conclude that CEMEX's and GCCC's sales constituted one 
level of trade. We based our conclusion on our analysis of each 
company's reported selling functions and sales channels after making 
deductions for selling expenses under section 772(d) of the Act. We 
found that, with some minor exceptions, CEMEX and GCCC performed the 
same selling functions to varying degrees in similar channels of 
distribution. We also concluded that the variations in the intensities 
of selling functions performed were not substantial when all selling 
expenses were considered.
    Based on our analysis of CEMEX's and GCCC's reported selling 
functions and sales channels, we conclude that CEMEX's and GCCC's home-
market sales to various classes of customers constitute two separate 
levels of trade (the CEMEX home-market level of trade and the GCCC 
home-market level of trade). We found that CEMEX and GCCC performed 
significantly different sales functions for sales to their home-market 
customers. Specifically, we found that the two home-market levels of 
trade differed with respect to selling activities such as after-sales 
service/warranties, customer approval, sales promotion/discount 
programs, sales forecasting, personnel training/exchange, and 
procurement and sourcing services. See the memorandum entitled ``Gray 
Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico: Level-of-Trade Analysis for 
the 03/04 Administrative Review,'' dated August 30, 2005.
    Further, we compared the CEMEX home-market level of trade to the 
CEP level and found that significantly different selling functions are 
performed at each level of trade and that fewer selling functions are 
performed for the U.S. sales than for the home-market sales. For 
example, sales at the CEP level do not include activities such as 
market research, strategic and economic planning, advertising, and 
after-sales service/warranties whereas sales in the CEMEX home-market 
level of trade include these activities. Based on this analysis, we 
concluded that the CEMEX home-market level of trade is different, is at 
a more advanced stage of distribution, and is more remote from the 
factory than the CEP level.
    Next, we compared the GCCC home-market level of trade to the CEP 
level and also found that significantly different selling functions are 
performed at these levels of trade and that fewer selling functions are 
performed for the U.S. sales than for the home-market sales. For 
example, sales at the CEP level do not include activities such as 
advertising, customer approval, sales promotion, sales forecasting, 
strategic and economic planning, personnel training/exchange, and 
procurement and sourcing services whereas sales in the GCCC home-market 
level of trade include these activities. Based on this analysis, we 
have concluded that the GCCC home-market level of trade is different, 
is at a more advanced stage of distribution, and is more remote from 
the factory than the CEP level.
    We could not match the CEP sales to sales at the same level of 
trade in the home market. In addition, we could not make a level-of-
trade adjustment because the differences in price between the CEP level 
of trade and the home-market level of trade cannot be quantified due to 
the lack of an equivalent to the CEP level in the home market. Also, 
there is no other data on the record which would allow us to make a 
level-of-trade adjustment. Thus, we made a CEP-offset adjustment to 
normal value in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. In 
accordance with section 773(a)(7) of the Act, we calculated the CEP 
offset as the smaller of the indirect selling expenses on the home-
market sale or the indirect selling expenses we deducted from the 
starting price in calculating CEP.

Currency Conversion

    Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we made currency 
conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the dumping 
margin for the collapsed respondent for the period August 1, 2003, 
through July 31, 2004, to be 40.54 percent.
    Case briefs or other written comments in at least six copies must 
be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no 
later than one week after the issuance of the Department's last 
verification report in this review. The Department will notify all 
parties of the applicable briefing schedule. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs are due no later than five days after 
the submission of case briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of 
contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any 
briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be 
limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with 19 
CFR 351.310, we will hold a public hearing to afford interested parties 
an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal 
briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested 
party. If we receive a request for a hearing, we plan to hold the 
hearing

[[Page 54017]]

three days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs at 
the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20230. Interested parties who wish to request a 
hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written 
request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days after the date of 
publication of the preliminary results of this review in the Federal 
Register. Requests should contain the following information: (1) the 
party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of 
participants; (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
    The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any case or rebuttal briefs, within 120 days of publication 
of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.213(h).

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this review, the Department will determine, and 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate 
for merchandise subject to this review. If these preliminary results 
are adopted in the final results of review, we will direct CBP to 
assess the resulting assessment rates against the entered customs 
values for the subject merchandise on the importer's entries during the 
POR.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    In conducting recent reviews of CEMEX and GCCC, the Department has 
observed a pattern of significant differences between the weighted-
average margins and the assessment rates it has determined for this 
respondent in those reviews. This pattern of differences suggests that 
the collection of a cash deposit for estimated antidumping duty based 
on net U.S. price may result in the undercollection of estimated 
antidumping duties at the time of entry, as discussed at Comment 6 of 
the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Administrative Review of 
Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico August 1, 2002, through 
July 31, 2003,'' dated December 29, 2004. Therefore, we have determined 
that it is appropriate to continue to require a per-unit cash-deposit 
amount for entries of subject merchandise produced or exported by CEMEX 
and GCCC.
    The following deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 
(1) The cash-deposit amount for CEMEX/GCCC will be the amount per 
metric ton determined in the final results of review; (2) for 
previously reviewed or investigated companies not mentioned above, the 
cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, a prior review, or in the original less-than-
fair-value (LTFV) investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash-
deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period 
for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash-deposit rate 
for all other manufacturers or exporters will be 61.85 percent, the 
all-others rate from the LTFV investigation. See Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from 
Mexico, 55 FR 29244 (July 18, 1990). These deposit requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results 
of the next administrative review.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 30, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-4974 Filed 9-12-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S