Low Enriched Uranium from France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 11386-11389 [E6-3176]
Download as PDF
11386
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 2006 / Notices
examined sales. Upon completion of
this review, where the assessment rate
is above de minimis (i.e., at or above
0.50 percent) the Department will
instruct CBP to assess duties on all
entries of subject merchandise by that
importer. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1).
Cash Deposit Requirements
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
16:39 Mar 06, 2006
Dated: February 28, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–3173 Filed 3–6–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
The following deposit requirements
will be effective upon completion of the
final results of this administrative
review for all shipments of flanges from
India entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
the publication date of the final results
of this administrative review, as
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the
Tariff Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for
the reviewed companies will be the
rates established in the final results of
administrative review; if the rate for a
particular company is zero or de
minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent), no
cash deposit will be required for that
company; (2) for manufacturers or
exporters not covered in this review, but
covered in the original less–than-fair–
value investigation or a previous review,
the cash deposit will continue to be the
most recent rate published in the final
determination or final results for which
the manufacturer or exporter received a
company–specific rate; (3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, a prior review or the original
investigation, but the manufacturer is,
the cash deposit rate will be that
established for the most recent period
for that manufacturer of the
merchandise; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm
covered in this or any previous reviews,
the cash deposit rate will be 162.14
percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established
in the LTFV investigation. See
Amended Final Determination. These
deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next
administrative review.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act
and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Jkt 208001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–337–806]
Certain Individually Quick Frozen Red
Raspberries From Chile: Notice of
Extension of Time Limit for 2004–2005
Administration Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Devta Ohri or Andrew McAllister, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1 Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14 Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482–3853 or (202) 482–
1174, respectively.
AGENCY:
Extension of Time Limits for
Preliminary Results
The Department requires additional
time to review, analyze, and verify the
sales and cost information submitted by
the parties in this administrative review.
Moreover, the Department requires
additional time to analyze complex
issues related to produce and supplier
relationships, issues additional
supplemental questionnaires and fully
analyze the responses. Thus, it is not
practicable to complete this review
within the original time limit (i.e., April
2, 2006). Therefore, the Department is
extending the time limit for completion
of the preliminary results to not later
than June 13, 2006, in accordance with
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 06, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 06–2140 Filed 3–6–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–427–818
Statutory Time Limits
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’),
requires the Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) to issue the preliminary
results of an administrative review
within 245 days after the last day of the
anniversary month of an order for which
a review is requested and a final
determination within 120 days after the
date on which the preliminary results
are published. If it is not practicable to
complete the review within the time
period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act
allows the Department to extend these
deadlines to a maximum of 365 days
and 180 days, respectively.
Background
On August 29, 2005, the Department
published in the Federal Register a
notice of initiation of administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on individually quick frozen red
raspberries from Chile, covering the
period July 1, 2004, through June 30,
2005. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in
Part 70 FR 51009 (August 29, 2005). The
preliminary results for this
administration review are currently due
no later than April 2, 2006.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Low Enriched Uranium from France:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on Low
Enriched Uranium (LEU) from France in
response to requests by USEC Inc. and
the United States Enrichment
Corporation (collectively, petitioners)
and by Eurodif, S.A.(Eurodif),
´ ´
`
Compagnie Generale Des Matieres
´
Nucleaires (COGEMA) and COGEMA,
Inc. (collectively, Eurodif/COGEMA or
the respondent). This review covers
sales of subject merchandise to the
United States during the period
February 1, 2004 through January 31,
2005.
We preliminarily determine that U.S.
sales have been made below normal
value (NV). If these preliminary results
are adopted in our final results, we will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping
duties based on the difference between
the constructed export price (CEP) and
the NV. Interested parties are invited to
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 2006 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
comment on these preliminary results.
See the Preliminary Results of Review
section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Hoadley or Myrna Lobo, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 6, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3148 or (202) 482–
2371, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 13, 2002, the Department
published the antidumping duty order
on LEU from France in the Federal
Register (67 FR 6680). On February 1,
2005, the Department published a notice
of opportunity to request an
administrative review of this order (70
FR 5136). On February 1, 2005 and
February 25, 2005, the Department
received timely requests for review from
Eurodif/COGEMA and from petitioners,
respectively. On March 23, 2005, we
published a notice initiating an
administrative review of the
antidumping order on LEU from France
covering one respondent, Eurodif/
COGEMA. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests
for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 14643
(March 23, 2005).
The Department issued its original
questionnaire, sections A through C, on
May 2, 2005, and received timely
responses. On September 29, 2005, the
Department extended the deadline for
the preliminary results of this
antidumping duty administrative review
until February 28, 2006. See Low
Enriched Uranium from France;
Extension of Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
58381 (October 6, 2005). On October 11,
2005, the Department issued a section D
and supplemental sections A through C
questionnaire and received timely
responses, after granting deadline
extensions, on December 8, 2005. The
Department issued further supplemental
questionnaires on January 12, 2006 and
February 3, 2006 and received timely
responses.
On January 25, 2006, pursuant to an
allegation filed by petitioners, the
Department initiated an investigation to
determine whether Eurodif/COGEMA’s
´
´
purchases of electricity from Electricite
de France (EdF), an affiliated supplier,
during the period of review (POR), were
made at prices below the cost of
production (COP). The Department also
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Mar 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
issued a questionnaire1 to obtain EdF’s
COP for electricity on the same date and
received a timely response on February
6, 2006. For purposes of these
preliminary results the Department has
used the information reported for EdF.
However, the Department may solicit
some clarifying information from
respondent regarding EdF’s COP after
the issuance of the preliminary results,
and we will take such information into
account in its cost calculation for the
final results of this review.
Period of Review
This review covers the period
February 1, 2004, through January 31,
2005.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is
all low enriched uranium. LEU is
enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6)
with a U235 product assay of less than
20 percent that has not been converted
into another chemical form, such as
UO2, or fabricated into nuclear fuel
assemblies, regardless of the means by
which the LEU is produced (including
LEU produced through the down–
blending of highly enriched uranium).
Certain merchandise is outside the
scope of this order. Specifically, this
order does not cover enriched uranium
hexafluoride with a U235 assay of 20
percent or greater, also known as highly
enriched uranium. In addition,
fabricated LEU is not covered by the
scope of this order. For purposes of this
order, fabricated uranium is defined as
enriched uranium dioxide (UO2),
whether or not contained in nuclear fuel
rods or assemblies. Natural uranium
concentrates (U3O8) with a U235
concentration of no greater than 0.711
percent and natural uranium
concentrates converted into uranium
hexafluoride with a U235 concentration
of no greater than 0.711 percent are not
covered by the scope of this order.
Also excluded from this order is LEU
owned by a foreign utility end–user and
imported into the United States by or for
such end–user solely for purposes of
conversion by a U.S. fabricator into
1 Section A of the questionnaire requests general
information concerning a company’s corporate
structure and business practices, the merchandise
under investigation that it sells, and the manner in
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets.
Section B requests a complete listing of all home
market sales, or, if the home market is not viable,
of sales in the most appropriate third-country
market (this section is not applicable to respondents
in non-market economy (NME) cases). Section C
requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D
requests information on the cost of production
(COP) of the foreign like product and the
constructed value (CV) of the merchandise under
investigation. Section E requests information on
further manufacturing.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11387
uranium dioxide (UO2) and/or
fabrication into fuel assemblies so long
as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel
assemblies deemed to incorporate such
imported LEU (i) remain in the
possession and control of the U.S.
fabricator, the foreign end–user, or their
designed transporter(s) while in U.S.
customs territory, and (ii) are re–
exported within eighteen (18) months of
entry of the LEU for consumption by the
end–user in a nuclear reactor outside
the United States. Such entries must be
accompanied by the certifications of the
importer and end user.
The merchandise subject to this order
is classified in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
at subheading 2844.20.0020. Subject
merchandise may also enter under
2844.20.0030, 2844.20.0050, and
2844.40.00. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise
is dispositive.
Analysis
Home Market Viability
In accordance with sections
773(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), to
determine whether there was a
sufficient volume of sales in the home
market and/or in third country markets
to serve as a viable basis for calculating
NV, we compared Eurodif/COGEMA’s
volume of home market sales of the
foreign like product to the volume of
U.S. sales of the subject merchandise.
Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and (C)
of the Act and section 351.404 (b) of the
Department’s regulations, because
Eurodif/COGEMA’s home market sales
were greater than five percent of the
aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the
subject merchandise, we determine the
home market to be viable. However,
because all sales were to a single
affiliated customer and the Department
was unable to confirm these sales to be
at arm’s length, we have used
constructed value (CV) as NV, for
purposes of these preliminary results.
We have consistently used CV as the
basis for NV in past segments of this
proceeding, see, e.g. Notice of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Low
Enriched Uranium from France, 69 FR
3883 (January 27, 2004).
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of LEU
from France were made in the United
States at less–than-fair value (LTFV), we
compared the CEP to CV, as described
in the Constructed Export Price and
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
11388
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 2006 / Notices
Calculation of Normal Value Based on
Constructed Value sections of this
notice. In accordance with section
777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated
CEPs and compared them to CV.
We note that during the POR, the
respondent sold LEU in the United
States pursuant to contracts in which
the respondent undertook to
manufacture and deliver LEU for a cash
payment covering only the value of the
enrichment component; for the natural
uranium feedstock component, the
respondent received an amount of
natural uranium equivalent to the
amount used to produce the LEU
shipped under contracts referred to as
separative work unit (SWU)2 contracts.
However, the product manufactured and
delivered by the respondent was LEU.
For purposes of our antidumping
analysis, we have translated prices and
costs involved in SWU contracts into an
LEU basis, increasing those values to
account for the cost of the uranium
feedstock involved. These adjustments
are described in greater detail below.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Constructed Export Price
In accordance with section 772(b) of
the Act, CEP is the price at which the
subject merchandise is first sold (or
agreed to be sold) in the United States
before or after the date of importation by
or for the account of the producer or
exporter of such merchandise, or by a
seller affiliated with the producer or
exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated
with the producer or exporter. During
the POR, Eurodif/COGEMA’s U.S. sales
were made to its U.S. affiliate, COGEMA
Inc., which then resold the merchandise
to unaffiliated customers. Therefore,
Eurodif/COGEMA classified all of its
U.S. export sales of LEU as CEP sales.
As stated in section 351.401(i) of the
Department’s regulations, the
Department will use the respondent’s
invoice date as the date of sale unless
another date better reflects the date
upon which the exporter or producer
establishes the material terms of sale. In
this review, we find that the material
terms of sale are established by the
contract between COGEMA Inc. and the
U.S. customer. Therefore, as in prior
reviews, we have used the contract date
as the date of sale. See Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Low Enriched
Uranium from France, 70 FR 54359
(September 14, 2005).
The Department calculated CEP for
Eurodif/COGEMA based on packed
2 A SWU is a unit of measurement of the effort
required to separate the U235 and U238 atoms in
uranium feed in order to create a final product
richer in U235 atoms.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Mar 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
prices to the first unaffiliated customer
in the United States. For all sales
involving payments on a SWU basis, we
translated the prices to an LEU basis, as
indicated above, by adding a value for
the uranium feedstock used in the
production of the LEU. This value was
derived from the respondent’s reported
entered value of feed, which was based
on publicly available information used
for customs entry purposes. We made
deductions from the starting price, net
of discounts, for movement expenses
(foreign and U.S. movement expenses,
expenses associated with shipment of
sample assays, and movement of
customer feed from North America to
France, marine insurance, merchandise
processing and U.S. harbor maintenance
fees, and brokerage) in accordance with
section 772(c)(2) of the Act and section
351.401(e) of the Department’s
regulations. In addition, in accordance
with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we
also deducted credit expenses and
indirect selling expenses, including
inventory carrying costs, incurred in the
United States and France and associated
with economic activities in the United
States.
Furthermore, in accordance with
sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act,
we made a deduction for CEP profit.
The CEP profit rate is normally
calculated on the basis of total revenue
and total expenses related to sales in the
comparison market and the U.S. market.
In this case, all home market sales were
to an affiliate; consequently, we based
CEP profit on the costs and revenues
reported for AREVA’s front end
division, which is COGEMA’s parent
company and represents the highest
level of consolidation for Eurodif. See
CV section below and Memorandum to
the File from Mark Hoadley and Myrna
Lobo, ‘‘Analysis of Eurodif/COGEMA
for the Preliminary Results of the Third
Administrative Review of Low Enriched
Uranium (LEU) from France,’’ dated
February 28, 2006 (Prelim Analysis
Memo).
Calculation of Normal Value Based on
Constructed Value
Section 773(e) of the Act provides that
CV shall be based on the sum of the
costs of materials and fabrication of the
foreign like product, plus amounts for
selling, general, and administrative
expenses (SG&A), profit, and U.S.
packing costs. In accordance with
section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, we
based general and administrative (G&A)
expenses on amounts derived from
Eurodif’s financial statements. In our
calculation of the interest expense, we
based financial expenses on the
financial statements of AREVA. For
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
selling expenses, we used information
on indirect selling expenses in third
countries provided in the questionnaire
response. Where appropriate, we made
circumstance of sale (COS) adjustments
to CV, in accordance with section
773(a)(8) of the Act and section 351.410
of the Department’s regulations.
Electricity is considered a major input
in the production of LEU. Eurodif
obtained electricity from its affiliated
supplier, EdF. On December 19, 2005,
petitioners alleged that Eurodif
purchased electricity from EdF at prices
less than the affiliated suppliers’ COP
during the POR. After reviewing
petitioners’ major input allegation, the
Department determined that it provided
a reasonable basis on which to initiate
an investigation of Eurodif’s purchases
of electricity from EdF. See
Memorandum from Mark Hoadley to
Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office 6,
‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Low Enriched Uranium from
France (2/1/04–1/31/05), Petitioners’
Allegation of Purchases of a Major Input
´
From Electricite de France (EdF), an
Affiliated Party, at Prices Below the
Affiliated Party’s Cost of Production,’’
dated January 25, 2006.
Section 773(f)(3) of the Act states that
‘‘{i}f, in the case of a transaction
between affiliated persons involving the
production by one of such persons of a
major input to the merchandise, the
administering authority has reasonable
grounds to believe or suspect that an
amount represented as the value of such
input is less than the cost of production
of such input, then the administering
authority may determine the value of
the major input on the basis of the
information available regarding such
cost of production, if such cost is greater
than the amount that would be
determined for such input under
paragraph (2).’’ In applying the major
input rule under section 351.407(b) of
the Department’s regulations, the
Department will normally compare the
transfer price between affiliates to the
market price for the input to ensure that
the transfer price is at least reflective of
the market price. For major inputs, the
Department then compares the transfer
price and the market price to the COP
to ensure that the transfer price charged
recovers the producer’s costs of
production. We evaluated the affiliated
supplier’s reported electricity COP
accordingly.
On January 25, 2006, the Department
solicited information from the
respondent regarding the calculation of
EdF’s COP. Based on the response
received on February 6, 2006, we have
calculated the average cost of electricity
for EdF. For details on calculations of
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 2006 / Notices
EdF’s cost of electricity see Prelim
Analysis Memo. Because the calculated
COP for electricity exceeded the transfer
price Eurodif paid to EdF for the
electricity purchased, we calculated CV
based on EdF’s COP for electricity, in
accordance with section 773(f)(3) of the
Act.
In addition, the Department requested
that Eurodif/COGEMA provide details
on certain research and development
(R&D) projects undertaken by its
`
affiliate, the Commissariat a l’Energie
Atomique (CEA). Because Eurodif/
COGEMA did not provide the requested
information and the Department does
not have any data on the record
regarding CEA’s R&D expenditures, we
must rely on secondary information. As
facts available and pursuant to sections
776(a) and (c) of the Act, we are relying
on USEC’s R&D expenditures on
centrifuge technology as a surrogate for
CEA’s R&D expenditure because it is the
only information on the record relating
to R&D. Section 776(c) of the Act
provides that the Department shall, to
the extent practicable, corroborate
secondary information used for facts
available by reviewing independent
sources reasonably at its disposal. The
Statement of Administrative Action
accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103–316
(SAA), at 870 (1994), explains that the
word ‘‘corroborate’’ means that the
Department will satisfy itself that the
secondary information to be used has
probative value. Because USEC’s R&D
appears to be for the very same
technology and it is conducted by a
company in the same industry, we
consider the information relevant and
corroborated. We have therefore added
an amount for R&D based on an average
of USEC’s costs over five years as done
in the previous review. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum for Final Results
of the Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Low
Enriched Uranium from France (2003–
2004) dated September 6, 2005, at
Comment 7.
In addition to the adjustments
described above, in calculating CV we
recalculated the reported defluorination
cost. For a full discussion of the
adjustments in calculating CV see
Prelim Analysis Memo.
We calculated profit in accordance
with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act
as explained in the SAA at 841. We
used a CV profit rate based on AREVA’s
front end division as reported by
respondent. See Prelim Analysis Memo.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions
pursuant to section 351.415 of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Mar 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
11389
Department’s regulations based on rates
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
performed in connection with these
preliminary results within five days
after the date of publication of this
Preliminary Results of Review
notice. Pursuant to section 351.309 of
We preliminarily determine that the
the Department’s regulations, interested
following dumping margin exists:
parties may submit written comments in
response to these preliminary results.
Manufacturer/Exporter
Margin (percent)
Unless extended by the Department,
Eurodif/COGEMA .........
7.70 case briefs are to be submitted within 30
days after the date of publication of this
notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to
Duty Assessment
arguments raised in case briefs, are to be
The Department shall determine, and
submitted no later than five days after
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on the time limit for filing case briefs.
all appropriate entries. Pursuant to
Parties who submit arguments in this
section 351.212(b) of the Department’s
proceeding are requested to submit with
regulations, the Department calculates
the argument: (1) a statement of the
an assessment rate for each importer of
issues, and (2) a brief summary of the
the subject merchandise for each
argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must
respondent. Liquidation of the entries of be served on interested parties in
LEU under review remains enjoined;
accordance with section 351.303(f) of
however, if the injunction is lifted, the
the Department’s regulations.
Department will promptly issue
Also, pursuant to section 351.310 (c)
appropriate assessment instructions
of the Department’s regulations, within
directly to CBP.
30 days of the date of publication of this
Cash Deposit Requirements
notice, interested parties may request a
public hearing on arguments raised in
The following cash deposit rates will
the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the
be effective with respect to all
Secretary specifies otherwise, the
shipments of LEU from France entered,
hearing, if requested, will be held two
or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication days after the date for submission of
rebuttal briefs. Parties will be notified of
date of the final results, as provided for
the time and location.
by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For
The Department will publish the final
Eurodif/COGEMA, the cash deposit rate
results of this administrative review,
will be the rate established in the final
including the results of its analysis of
results of this review; (2) for previously
reviewed or investigated companies not issues raised in any case or rebuttal
brief, no later than 120 days after
listed above, the cash deposit rate will
publication of these preliminary results,
be the company–specific rate
unless extended. See section 351.213(h)
established for the most recent period;
of the Department’s regulations.
(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered
in this review, a prior review, or the
Notification to Importers
LTFV investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
This notice serves as a preliminary
will be the rate established for the most
reminder to importers of their
recent period for the manufacturer of
responsibility under section 351.402(f)
the subject merchandise; and (4) if
of the Department’s regulations to file a
neither the exporter nor the
certificate regarding the reimbursement
manufacturer is a firm covered by this
of antidumping duties prior to
review, a prior review, or the LTFV
liquidation of the relevant entries
investigation, the cash deposit rate shall during this review period. Failure to
be the ‘‘all other’’ rate established in the comply with this requirement could
LTFV investigation, which is 19.95
result in the Secretary’s presumption
percent. See Notice of Amended Final
that reimbursement of antidumping
Determination of Sales at Less Than
duties occurred and the subsequent
Fair Value and Antidumping Duty
assessment of double antidumping
Order: Low Enriched Uranium from
duties.
France, 67 FR 6680 (February 13, 2002).
This administrative review and notice
These deposit rates, when imposed,
are issued and published in accordance
shall remain in effect until publication
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
of the final results of the next
the Act.
administrative review.
Public Comment
Pursuant to section 351.224(b) of the
Department’s regulations, the
Department will disclose to parties to
the proceeding any calculations
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: February 28, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–3176 Filed 3–6–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11386-11389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-3176]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-427-818
Low Enriched Uranium from France: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Low Enriched
Uranium (LEU) from France in response to requests by USEC Inc. and the
United States Enrichment Corporation (collectively, petitioners) and by
Eurodif, S.A.(Eurodif), Compagnie G[eacute]n[eacute]rale Des
Mati[egrave]res Nucl[eacute]aires (COGEMA) and COGEMA, Inc.
(collectively, Eurodif/COGEMA or the respondent). This review covers
sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the period
February 1, 2004 through January 31, 2005.
We preliminarily determine that U.S. sales have been made below
normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our
final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the
constructed export price (CEP) and the NV. Interested parties are
invited to
[[Page 11387]]
comment on these preliminary results. See the Preliminary Results of
Review section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hoadley or Myrna Lobo, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3148 or (202) 482-2371, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 13, 2002, the Department published the antidumping duty
order on LEU from France in the Federal Register (67 FR 6680). On
February 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of this order (70 FR 5136). On
February 1, 2005 and February 25, 2005, the Department received timely
requests for review from Eurodif/COGEMA and from petitioners,
respectively. On March 23, 2005, we published a notice initiating an
administrative review of the antidumping order on LEU from France
covering one respondent, Eurodif/COGEMA. See Initiation of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for
Revocation in Part, 70 FR 14643 (March 23, 2005).
The Department issued its original questionnaire, sections A
through C, on May 2, 2005, and received timely responses. On September
29, 2005, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary
results of this antidumping duty administrative review until February
28, 2006. See Low Enriched Uranium from France; Extension of Time Limit
for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 58381 (October 6, 2005). On October 11, 2005, the
Department issued a section D and supplemental sections A through C
questionnaire and received timely responses, after granting deadline
extensions, on December 8, 2005. The Department issued further
supplemental questionnaires on January 12, 2006 and February 3, 2006
and received timely responses.
On January 25, 2006, pursuant to an allegation filed by
petitioners, the Department initiated an investigation to determine
whether Eurodif/COGEMA's purchases of electricity from
[Eacute]lectricit[eacute] de France (EdF), an affiliated supplier,
during the period of review (POR), were made at prices below the cost
of production (COP). The Department also issued a questionnaire\1\ to
obtain EdF's COP for electricity on the same date and received a timely
response on February 6, 2006. For purposes of these preliminary results
the Department has used the information reported for EdF. However, the
Department may solicit some clarifying information from respondent
regarding EdF's COP after the issuance of the preliminary results, and
we will take such information into account in its cost calculation for
the final results of this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices,
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B
requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the
home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-
country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in
non-market economy (NME) cases). Section C requests a complete
listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of
production (COP) of the foreign like product and the constructed
value (CV) of the merchandise under investigation. Section E
requests information on further manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review
This review covers the period February 1, 2004, through January 31,
2005.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is all low enriched uranium. LEU
is enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) with a U\235\ product
assay of less than 20 percent that has not been converted into another
chemical form, such as UO2, or fabricated into nuclear fuel
assemblies, regardless of the means by which the LEU is produced
(including LEU produced through the down-blending of highly enriched
uranium).
Certain merchandise is outside the scope of this order.
Specifically, this order does not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride
with a U\235\ assay of 20 percent or greater, also known as highly
enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is not covered by the
scope of this order. For purposes of this order, fabricated uranium is
defined as enriched uranium dioxide (UO2), whether or not
contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural uranium
concentrates (U3O8) with a U\235\ concentration
of no greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates
converted into uranium hexafluoride with a U\235\ concentration of no
greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the scope of this order.
Also excluded from this order is LEU owned by a foreign utility
end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user
solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium
dioxide (UO2) and/or fabrication into fuel assemblies so
long as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel assemblies deemed to
incorporate such imported LEU (i) remain in the possession and control
of the U.S. fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their designed
transporter(s) while in U.S. customs territory, and (ii) are re-
exported within eighteen (18) months of entry of the LEU for
consumption by the end-user in a nuclear reactor outside the United
States. Such entries must be accompanied by the certifications of the
importer and end user.
The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading
2844.20.0020. Subject merchandise may also enter under 2844.20.0030,
2844.20.0050, and 2844.40.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description
of the merchandise is dispositive.
Analysis
Home Market Viability
In accordance with sections 773(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act), to determine whether there was a
sufficient volume of sales in the home market and/or in third country
markets to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared
Eurodif/COGEMA's volume of home market sales of the foreign like
product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise.
Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the Act and section
351.404 (b) of the Department's regulations, because Eurodif/COGEMA's
home market sales were greater than five percent of the aggregate
volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determine the home
market to be viable. However, because all sales were to a single
affiliated customer and the Department was unable to confirm these
sales to be at arm's length, we have used constructed value (CV) as NV,
for purposes of these preliminary results. We have consistently used CV
as the basis for NV in past segments of this proceeding, see, e.g.
Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Low Enriched Uranium from France, 69 FR 3883 (January 27,
2004).
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of LEU from France were made in the
United States at less-than-fair value (LTFV), we compared the CEP to
CV, as described in the Constructed Export Price and
[[Page 11388]]
Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value sections of this
notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated
CEPs and compared them to CV.
We note that during the POR, the respondent sold LEU in the United
States pursuant to contracts in which the respondent undertook to
manufacture and deliver LEU for a cash payment covering only the value
of the enrichment component; for the natural uranium feedstock
component, the respondent received an amount of natural uranium
equivalent to the amount used to produce the LEU shipped under
contracts referred to as separative work unit (SWU)\2\ contracts.
However, the product manufactured and delivered by the respondent was
LEU. For purposes of our antidumping analysis, we have translated
prices and costs involved in SWU contracts into an LEU basis,
increasing those values to account for the cost of the uranium
feedstock involved. These adjustments are described in greater detail
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A SWU is a unit of measurement of the effort required to
separate the U235 and U238 atoms in uranium feed in order to create
a final product richer in U235 atoms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constructed Export Price
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in
the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the
account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller
affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated
with the producer or exporter. During the POR, Eurodif/COGEMA's U.S.
sales were made to its U.S. affiliate, COGEMA Inc., which then resold
the merchandise to unaffiliated customers. Therefore, Eurodif/COGEMA
classified all of its U.S. export sales of LEU as CEP sales.
As stated in section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations,
the Department will use the respondent's invoice date as the date of
sale unless another date better reflects the date upon which the
exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale. In this
review, we find that the material terms of sale are established by the
contract between COGEMA Inc. and the U.S. customer. Therefore, as in
prior reviews, we have used the contract date as the date of sale. See
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Low
Enriched Uranium from France, 70 FR 54359 (September 14, 2005).
The Department calculated CEP for Eurodif/COGEMA based on packed
prices to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. For all
sales involving payments on a SWU basis, we translated the prices to an
LEU basis, as indicated above, by adding a value for the uranium
feedstock used in the production of the LEU. This value was derived
from the respondent's reported entered value of feed, which was based
on publicly available information used for customs entry purposes. We
made deductions from the starting price, net of discounts, for movement
expenses (foreign and U.S. movement expenses, expenses associated with
shipment of sample assays, and movement of customer feed from North
America to France, marine insurance, merchandise processing and U.S.
harbor maintenance fees, and brokerage) in accordance with section
772(c)(2) of the Act and section 351.401(e) of the Department's
regulations. In addition, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the
Act, we also deducted credit expenses and indirect selling expenses,
including inventory carrying costs, incurred in the United States and
France and associated with economic activities in the United States.
Furthermore, in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of
the Act, we made a deduction for CEP profit. The CEP profit rate is
normally calculated on the basis of total revenue and total expenses
related to sales in the comparison market and the U.S. market. In this
case, all home market sales were to an affiliate; consequently, we
based CEP profit on the costs and revenues reported for AREVA's front
end division, which is COGEMA's parent company and represents the
highest level of consolidation for Eurodif. See CV section below and
Memorandum to the File from Mark Hoadley and Myrna Lobo, ``Analysis of
Eurodif/COGEMA for the Preliminary Results of the Third Administrative
Review of Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) from France,'' dated February 28,
2006 (Prelim Analysis Memo).
Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
Section 773(e) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the
sum of the costs of materials and fabrication of the foreign like
product, plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative expenses
(SG&A), profit, and U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section
773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, we based general and administrative (G&A)
expenses on amounts derived from Eurodif's financial statements. In our
calculation of the interest expense, we based financial expenses on the
financial statements of AREVA. For selling expenses, we used
information on indirect selling expenses in third countries provided in
the questionnaire response. Where appropriate, we made circumstance of
sale (COS) adjustments to CV, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of
the Act and section 351.410 of the Department's regulations.
Electricity is considered a major input in the production of LEU.
Eurodif obtained electricity from its affiliated supplier, EdF. On
December 19, 2005, petitioners alleged that Eurodif purchased
electricity from EdF at prices less than the affiliated suppliers' COP
during the POR. After reviewing petitioners' major input allegation,
the Department determined that it provided a reasonable basis on which
to initiate an investigation of Eurodif's purchases of electricity from
EdF. See Memorandum from Mark Hoadley to Barbara E. Tillman, Director,
Office 6, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Low Enriched
Uranium from France (2/1/04-1/31/05), Petitioners' Allegation of
Purchases of a Major Input From Electricit[eacute] de France (EdF), an
Affiliated Party, at Prices Below the Affiliated Party's Cost of
Production,'' dated January 25, 2006.
Section 773(f)(3) of the Act states that ``{i{time} f, in the case
of a transaction between affiliated persons involving the production by
one of such persons of a major input to the merchandise, the
administering authority has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that an amount represented as the value of such input is less than the
cost of production of such input, then the administering authority may
determine the value of the major input on the basis of the information
available regarding such cost of production, if such cost is greater
than the amount that would be determined for such input under paragraph
(2).'' In applying the major input rule under section 351.407(b) of the
Department's regulations, the Department will normally compare the
transfer price between affiliates to the market price for the input to
ensure that the transfer price is at least reflective of the market
price. For major inputs, the Department then compares the transfer
price and the market price to the COP to ensure that the transfer price
charged recovers the producer's costs of production. We evaluated the
affiliated supplier's reported electricity COP accordingly.
On January 25, 2006, the Department solicited information from the
respondent regarding the calculation of EdF's COP. Based on the
response received on February 6, 2006, we have calculated the average
cost of electricity for EdF. For details on calculations of
[[Page 11389]]
EdF's cost of electricity see Prelim Analysis Memo. Because the
calculated COP for electricity exceeded the transfer price Eurodif paid
to EdF for the electricity purchased, we calculated CV based on EdF's
COP for electricity, in accordance with section 773(f)(3) of the Act.
In addition, the Department requested that Eurodif/COGEMA provide
details on certain research and development (R&D) projects undertaken
by its affiliate, the Commissariat [agrave] l'Energie Atomique (CEA).
Because Eurodif/COGEMA did not provide the requested information and
the Department does not have any data on the record regarding CEA's R&D
expenditures, we must rely on secondary information. As facts available
and pursuant to sections 776(a) and (c) of the Act, we are relying on
USEC's R&D expenditures on centrifuge technology as a surrogate for
CEA's R&D expenditure because it is the only information on the record
relating to R&D. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department
shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information
used for facts available by reviewing independent sources reasonably at
its disposal. The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316 (SAA), at 870 (1994),
explains that the word ``corroborate'' means that the Department will
satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative
value. Because USEC's R&D appears to be for the very same technology
and it is conducted by a company in the same industry, we consider the
information relevant and corroborated. We have therefore added an
amount for R&D based on an average of USEC's costs over five years as
done in the previous review. See Issues and Decision Memorandum for
Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Low Enriched Uranium from France (2003-2004) dated September
6, 2005, at Comment 7.
In addition to the adjustments described above, in calculating CV
we recalculated the reported defluorination cost. For a full discussion
of the adjustments in calculating CV see Prelim Analysis Memo.
We calculated profit in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii)
of the Act as explained in the SAA at 841. We used a CV profit rate
based on AREVA's front end division as reported by respondent. See
Prelim Analysis Memo.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions pursuant to section 351.415 of the
Department's regulations based on rates certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin
exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eurodif/COGEMA...................................... 7.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duty Assessment
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to section 351.212(b) of
the Department's regulations, the Department calculates an assessment
rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each respondent.
Liquidation of the entries of LEU under review remains enjoined;
however, if the injunction is lifted, the Department will promptly
issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit rates will be effective with respect to
all shipments of LEU from France entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results,
as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For Eurodif/
COGEMA, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final
results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated
companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the company-
specific rate established for the most recent period; (3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the
LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will
be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer
of the subject merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the
manufacturer is a firm covered by this review, a prior review, or the
LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate shall be the ``all other''
rate established in the LTFV investigation, which is 19.95 percent. See
Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Antidumping Duty Order: Low Enriched Uranium from France, 67 FR
6680 (February 13, 2002). These deposit rates, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
Public Comment
Pursuant to section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations, the
Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations
performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days
after the date of publication of this notice. Pursuant to section
351.309 of the Department's regulations, interested parties may submit
written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless
extended by the Department, case briefs are to be submitted within 30
days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs,
limited to arguments raised in case briefs, are to be submitted no
later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.
Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit
with the argument: (1) a statement of the issues, and (2) a brief
summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on
interested parties in accordance with section 351.303(f) of the
Department's regulations.
Also, pursuant to section 351.310 (c) of the Department's
regulations, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice,
interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments raised in
the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise,
the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for
submission of rebuttal briefs. Parties will be notified of the time and
location.
The Department will publish the final results of this
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues
raised in any case or rebuttal brief, no later than 120 days after
publication of these preliminary results, unless extended. See section
351.213(h) of the Department's regulations.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations
to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period.
Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's
presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the
subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 28, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-3176 Filed 3-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S