Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 37189-37195 [E7-13231]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 130 / Monday, July 9, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Rescission of Review International Trade Administration Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. In this case, Shenzhen withdrew its request for administrative review of its exports of automotive replacement glass windshields for the POR within 90 days from the date of publication of the Initiation Notice. No other interested party requested a review of this company. Therefore, the Department is rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on automotive replacement glass windshields from the PRC covering the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). [A–570–867] Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 30, 2007, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) initiated the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on automotive replacement glass windshields from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) covering the period of review from April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007 (‘‘POR’’). See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 29968 (May 30, 2007) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). On June 5, 2007, the request for administrative review received by the Department was withdrawn. Therefore, the Department is rescinding this administrative review of automotive replacement glass windshields from the PRC. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev Primor, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4114. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES Background On April 2, 2007, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on automotive replacement glass windshields from the PRC for the POR. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 15650 (April 2, 2007). On April 30, 2007, Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd., (‘‘Shenzhen’’) requested an administrative review of its sales of automotive replacement glass windshields to the United States during the POR. Pursuant to this request, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on automotive replacement glass windshields from the PRC. See Initiation Notice. On June 5, 2007, Shenzhen timely withdrew its request for administrative review. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:59 Jul 06, 2007 Jkt 211001 Assessment The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries for Shenzhen. 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 intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Notification to Importers 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 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 assumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders (‘‘APOs’’) This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to APOs of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 37189 and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This notice is in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: July 2, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7–13232 Filed 7–6–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–469–814] Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to timely requests ´ by Aragonesas Industrias y Energıa S.A. (‘‘Aragonesas’’), and Biolab, Inc., Clearon Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation (collectively, ‘‘the Petitioners’’), the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates (‘‘chlorinated isos’’) from Spain with respect to Aragonesas. The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is December 20, 2004, through May 31, 2006. The Department has preliminarily determined that Aragonesas made U.S. sales of chlorinated isos at prices less than normal value (‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In addition, the Department has received information sufficient to warrant a successor–ininterest analysis in this administrative review. Based on this information, the Department preliminarily determines that Aragonesas is the successor–ininterest to Aragonesas Delsa S.A. (‘‘Delsa’’) for purposes of determining antidumping duty liability. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results of review no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin or Mark Manning at (202) 482–3936 or (202) 482–5253, AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\09JYN1.SGM 09JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES 37190 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 130 / Monday, July 9, 2007 / Notices respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 24, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain. See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain: Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 70 FR 36562 (June 24, 2005). In response to timely requests filed by the Petitioners and Aragonesas, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 42626 (July 27, 2006). The POR for this administrative review is December 20, 2004, through May 31, 2006. On July 26, 2006, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to Aragonesas. On August 7, 2006, Aragonesas requested that the Department allow it to limit its reporting of cost of production (‘‘COP’’) and constructed value (‘‘CV’’) information in this review to exclude the last twelve days of 2004. In a letter dated August 9, 2006, the Department granted Aragonesas’ request and permitted it to limit its COP and CV reporting to information based on its fiscal year (i.e., for calendar year 2005 and January through May, 2006). On September 19, 2006, Aragonesas requested that the Department permit Aragonesas to report in its home market sales database only metric ton sack (‘‘supersack’’) sales in Spain, or alternatively, only supersack sales and the one or two most similar models sold in Spain. In a letter dated October 3, 2006, the Department rejected Aragonesas’ request and informed Aragonesas that it was responsible for reporting all home market sales of subject merchandise, regardless of the packaging characteristics applicable to the sale. The Department found that Aragonesas’ proposed reporting methodology excluded the possibility of similar matches with U.S. sales with different packaging characteristics. On September 13, 2006, the Department received Aragonesas’ response to section A of the antidumping questionnaire. On October 3, 2006, the Department received Aragonesas’ response to sections B and C of the antidumping questionnaire. On October 17, 2006, the Department received Aragonesas’ response to section D of the antidumping VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:59 Jul 06, 2007 Jkt 211001 questionnaire. We issued supplemental questionnaires to Aragonesas on November 7, 2006, November 21, 2006, December 1, 2006, December 12, 2006, January 24, 2007, February 9, 2007, March 12, 2007, March 23, 2007, and April 17, 2007. Aragonesas filed timely responses to each questionnaire. The Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results in this review twice, once by 90 days, and later by an additional 30 days. See Chlorinated Isocyanurates From Spain: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review, 72 FR 7603 (February 16, 2007); Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review, 72 FR 23800 (May 1, 2007). In its questionnaire responses, Aragonesas provided information regarding its relationship with an affiliated producer of chlorinated isos during the POR. After an analysis of this information, the Department determined that, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f), it is not appropriate to collapse Aragonesas and the affiliated producer for purposes of this review because: (a) The common ownership between the corporate group consisting of Ercros Industrial, S.A. (‘‘Ercros’’) (Aragonesas’ parent company) and Aragonesas, and the affiliated producer, is not significant; (b) the management overlap between the corporate group consisting of Ercros and Aragonesas, and the affiliated producer, is not significant; and (c) although there are significant intertwined operations between the corporate group consisting of Ercros and Aragonesas, and the affiliated producer, most of these intertwined operations are between Ercros, rather than Aragonesas, and the affiliate. Because of the proprietary nature of the details of the Department’s decision, a complete explanation is contained in the Memorandum from Abdelali Elouaradia, Office Director, to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain: Collapsing Aragonesas ´ Industrias y Energıa, S.A. and [* * *],’’ dated May 2, 2007 (‘‘Collapsing Memorandum’’). Thus, the Department determined that there is no significant potential for manipulation of price if the affiliate does not receive the same antidumping duty rate as Aragonesas. See Collapsing Memorandum at 8. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are chlorinated isos. Chlorinated isos are derivatives of cyanuric acid, PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 described as chlorinated s–triazine triones. There are three primary chemical compositions of chlorinated isos: (1) Trichloroisocyanuric acid (Cl3(NCO)3), (2) sodium dichloroisocyanurate (dihydrate) (NaCl2(NCO)3 2H2O), and (3) sodium dichloroisocyanurate (anhydrous) (NaCl2(NCO)3). Chlorinated isos are available in powder, granular, and tableted forms. This order covers all chlorinated isos. Chlorinated isos are currently classifiable under subheadings 2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, and 2933.69.6050 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). The tariff classification 2933.69.6015 covers sodium dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and dihydrate forms) and trichloroisocyanuric acid. The tariff classifications 2933.69.6021 and 2933.69.6050 represent basket categories that include chlorinated isos and other compounds including an unfused triazine ring. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Past Scope Rulings During the Department’s less–thanfair–value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation of chlorinated isos from Spain, Arch Chemicals, Inc. (‘‘Arch’’), an importer, argued that its patented, formulated, chlorinated isos tablet is not covered by the scope of the investigation. In the Final LTFV Determination, the Department found that Arch’s patented chlorinated isos tablet is included within the scope of this antidumping duty investigation. See Chlorinated Isocyanurates From Spain: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 70 FR 24506 (May 10, 2005) (‘‘Final LTFV Determination’’); see also Memorandum from Holly A. Kuga, Senior Office Director, to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Scope of the Antidumping Duty Investigations of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China and Spain,’’ dated December 10, 2004. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), during the period May 7 through 18, 2007, the Department verified the sales and cost information submitted by Aragonesas in its questionnaire responses provided during the course of this review. We used standard verification procedures including E:\FR\FM\09JYN1.SGM 09JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 130 / Monday, July 9, 2007 / Notices rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondent. See Memorandum from Thomas Martin, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to The File, ‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of Aragonesas Industrias ´ y Energıa, S.A. in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain,’’ dated June 11, 2007; see also Memorandum from Michael P. Harrison to The File Regarding ‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of Aragonesas ´ Industrias y Energıa, S.A. in the Antidumping Review of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain,’’ dated June 27, 2007. Successor–In-Interest Analysis In accordance with section 751(b) of the Act, the Department is conducting a successor–in-interest analysis to determine whether Aragonesas is the successor–in-interest to Delsa for purposes of determining antidumping liability with respect to the subject merchandise. In making such a successor–in-interest determination, the Department examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Bar from Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Review, 70 FR 46480, 46481 (August 10, 2005) (‘‘Stainless Steel Bar from Italy’’); Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan, 67 FR 58, 58–59 (January 2, 2002) (‘‘Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan’’); Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460, at Comment 1 (May 13, 1992) (‘‘Canadian Brass’’). While no individual factor or combination of these factors will necessarily provide a dispositive indication, the Department will generally consider the new company to be the successor to the previous company if its resulting operation is not materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Bar from Italy, 70 FR at 46481; Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan 67 FR at 58; Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 9979, 9979–9980 (March 1, 1999); Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway; Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:59 Jul 06, 2007 Jkt 211001 Review, 63 FR 50880, 50881 (September 23, 1998) (unchanged in final results); Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944, at Comment 1 (February 14, 1994); Canadian Brass, at Comment 1. Thus, if the evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the former company, the Department will generally accord the new company the same antidumping duty treatment as its predecessor. We preliminarily determine that Aragonesas is the successor–in-interest to Delsa. Aragonesas explained in its questionnaire response that Delsa was a separately incorporated company, wholly–owned by Uralita Group S.A. (‘‘Uralita’’), and held within Uralita’s Chemical Division. The Chemical Division of Uralita consisted of three separately incorporated companies: ´ Delsa, Aragonesas Industrias y Energıa S.A., and Aiscondel S.A. In June 2005, Uralita sold the Chemical Division to Ercros. In December 2005, Ercros consolidated Delsa and the two other companies into one company, Aragonesas (the POR respondent). As a result of the consolidation in December 2005, Delsa’s separate corporate board of three members was eliminated, and replaced by a sole director for all three Aragonesas business divisions that reports to the Ercros board. The Department has examined the information placed on the record by Aragonesas concerning successorship. Based upon our review, we preliminarily find that there were no changes in key managerial positions or the production facilities in the operating unit that produces subject merchandise. Furthermore, the Department preliminarily finds no evidence of any change in supplier relationships or the customer base stemming from the sale of Delsa, and the subsequent formation of Aragonesas. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that there has been little change to the operating unit that produces subject merchandise as a result of the sale to a new corporate parent company, Ercros. The only change is the reorganized directorship, and the number of board members. Accordingly, the Department preliminarily finds that Aragonesas is the successor–in-interest to Delsa, and should receive the same antidumping duty treatment with respect to chlorinated isos as the respondent from the Final LTFV Determination, the former company Delsa. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 37191 Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether Aragonesas sold chlorinated isos in the United States at prices less than NV, the Department compared the export price (‘‘EP’’) of individual U.S. sales to the weighted–average NV of sales of the foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade in a month contemporaneous with the month in which the U.S. sale was made. See section 777A(d)(2) of the Act; see also section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. Section 771(16) of the Act defines foreign like product as merchandise that is identical or similar to subject merchandise and produced by the same person and in the same country as the subject merchandise. Thus, we considered all products covered by the scope of the order, that were produced by the same person and in the same country as the subject merchandise, and sold by Aragonesas in the home market during the POR, to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to chlorinated isos sold in the United States. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, the Department considered all products produced by the respondent 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. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), the Department compared U.S. sales made by Aragonesas to sales made in the home market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, the Department compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, the Department matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by Aragonesas in the following order: chemical structure, free available chlorine content, physical form, and packaging. Export Price The Department based the price of Aragonesas’ U.S. sales on EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly by Aragonesas to the first unaffiliated E:\FR\FM\09JYN1.SGM 09JYN1 37192 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 130 / Monday, July 9, 2007 / Notices purchaser in the United States prior to importation and constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) methodology was not otherwise indicated. We based EP on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Aragonesas reported its U.S. sales on either a delivered duty paid or delivered duty unpaid basis. We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, international freight, foreign inland and marine insurance, foreign and U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. inland freight and U.S. duty, in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402. The Department excluded specified quantities of Aragonesas’ merchandise sold in the U.S., for reasons that are of a business proprietary nature. See Memorandum from Thomas Martin, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Edward Yang, Senior Enforcement Coordinator, ‘‘Whether Certain Merchandise Sold By ´ Aragonesas Industrias y Energıa, S.A Constitutes Subject Merchandise and Foreign Like Product,’’ dated June 22, 2007 (‘‘Scope Memorandum’’). Normal Value After testing home market viability, whether home market sales to affiliates were at arm’s–length prices, and whether home market sales were at below–cost prices, we calculated NV for Aragonesas as noted in the ‘‘Price–toPrice Comparisons’’ section of this notice. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES 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, the Department compared Aragonesas’ 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. We excluded sales of merchandise that were not foreign like product or subject merchandise, for reasons that are of a business proprietary nature. See Scope Memorandum. Because Aragonesas’ 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, the Department determined that its home market was viable. B. Arm’s–Length Test The Department may calculate NV based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the prices at which sales are made to parties VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:59 Jul 06, 2007 Jkt 211001 not affiliated with the exporter or producer, i.e., sales at arm’s–length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). Sales to affiliated customers for consumption in the home market that are determined not to be at arm’s–length are excluded from our analysis. In this proceeding, Aragonesas reported sales of the foreign like product to affiliated customers. To test whether these sales were made at arm’s–length prices, the Department compared the prices of sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c), and in accordance with the Department’s practice, when the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to that sold to the affiliated party, we determined that the sales to the affiliated party were at arm’s–length. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002). Where Aragonesas’ sales to affiliated home market customers did not pass the arm’s–length test we excluded those sales from our analysis. C. Cost of Production Analysis We calculated a margin for Delsa in the Final LTFV Determination, which was the most recently completed segment of this proceeding as of the publication date of the initiation of this review. In those calculations, the Department disregarded some sales made at prices that were below COP. As a result, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department has determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Aragonesas, which the Department has preliminarily determined is the successor–in-interest to Delsa, sold the foreign like product at prices below the cost of producing the product during the instant POR. Accordingly, the Department initiated a sales below cost inquiry with respect to Aragonesas and required that Aragonesas provide a response to Section D of the questionnaire. 1. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, for each foreign like product sold by Aragonesas during the POR, the Department calculated Aragonesas’ weighted–average COP based on the sum of its materials and fabrication costs, plus amounts for general and administrative (‘‘G&A’’) expenses and interest expenses. See ‘‘Test of PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Comparison Market Sales Prices’’ section below for treatment of home market selling expenses. We relied on the COP information provided by Aragonesas in its questionnaire responses, except for the following instances where the information was not appropriately quantified or valued: i) We adjusted Aragonesas’ G&A expense rate to include certain non–operating expenses. We also adjusted the cost of goods sold used in the denominator of the expense rate calculation to correct an error in the amount of packing costs deducted. ii) We adjusted the financial expense rate to exclude interest income from fixed income securities and to exclude an account titled ‘‘Profit of Companies by the Participation Method.’’ We also adjusted the cost of goods sold used in the denominator of the expense rate calculation to deduct an estimate of the amount of selling, general and administrative expenses for the consolidated group of companies. For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum from Michael P. Harrison to Neal Halper, ‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Results,’’ dated July 2, 2007. 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices In order to determine whether sales were made at prices below the COP, on a product–specific basis, the Department compared Aragonesas’ adjusted weighted–average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, in determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: (1) in substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. For purposes of this comparison, the Department used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The prices were inclusive of billing adjustments and exclusive of any applicable movement charges, discounts and rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses and packing expenses, revised where appropriate. 3. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent’s home market sales of a E:\FR\FM\09JYN1.SGM 09JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 130 / Monday, July 9, 2007 / Notices rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES given product are at prices less than the COP, the Department does not disregard any below–cost sales of that product, because the Department determines that in such instances the below–cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more of a respondent’s sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, the Department disregards the below– cost sales because they: (1) were made within an extended period of time in ‘‘substantial quantities,’’ in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; and (2) based on our comparison of prices to the weighted–average COPs for the POR, were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on the results of our test, we found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of Aragonesas’ home market sales were at prices less than the COP and, in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices We based NV on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold by Aragonesas for consumption in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the comparison U.S. sale. We excluded sales of merchandise that were not foreign like product, for reasons that are of a business proprietary nature. See Scope Memorandum. We calculated NV for Aragonesas using the reported gross unit prices to unaffiliated purchasers, or where appropriate, affiliated purchasers, which are based upon the following terms of delivery: carriage insurance paid, carriage paid, delivered duty paid, delivered duty unpaid, ex works, and free carrier. Where appropriate, the Department made adjustments to the starting price for billing adjustments. We deducted from the starting price, where appropriate, discounts and rebates, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. Based on our sales verification findings, we revised inland freight to account for certain unreported freight expenses. See Memorandum from Thomas Martin, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to the File, ‘‘Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results for Aragonesas Industrias y VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:59 Jul 06, 2007 Jkt 211001 Energia S.A.,’’ dated July 2, 2007 (‘‘Calculation Memorandum’’). We also made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. In addition, the Department made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale for imputed credit expenses. We also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. Currency Conversion Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we converted amounts expressed in foreign currencies into U.S. dollar amounts based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, the Department determines NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP sales in the U.S. market. The NV LOT is based on the starting price of the sales in the comparison market. Where NV is based on CV, the Department determines the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which the Department derives selling expenses, general and administrative expenses, and profit for CV, where possible. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Fresh Atlantic Salmon From Chile, 63 FR 2664 (January 16, 1998) (unchanged in final determination). For EP sales, the U.S. LOT is based on the starting price of the sales to the U.S. market. For CEP sales, the U.S. LOT is based on the starting price of the sales to the U.S. market, as adjusted under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than the EP and CEP sales, the Department examines stages in the marketing process and level of selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 37193 Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to foreign like product sales in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP sale, the Department may compare the U.S. sales to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where the difference affects price comparability, as manifested by a pattern of consistent price differences between comparison– market sales at the NV LOT and comparison–market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, the Department makes a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the difference between the NV and CEP LOTs affects price comparability, the Department adjusts NV under section 773(A)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). Id. at 61732. In this administrative review, Aragonesas had only EP sales in the U.S. market, thus the CEP methodology was not employed in this review. The Department obtained information from Aragonesas regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported home market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed for each channel of distribution. Aragonesas reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market through a single distribution channel (i.e., sales to industrial users). Because all sales in the United States are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market. Aragonesas reported that it made sales in the home market through three channels of distribution (i.e., industrial customers, retail customers, and distributors). We compared the selling functions performed by Aragonesas for these three distribution channels and found that Aragonesas performed similar selling activities in the home market for the retail and distributor channels of distribution, and fewer selling activities for industrial home market customers. Thus, we preliminarily find that the retail and distributor channels of distribution constitute one NV LOT, while the channel of distribution for industrial customers is a second NV LOT. Moreover, we preliminarily find that the NV LOT for retail and industrial purchasers is at a more advanced stage than the NV LOT for industrial customers. E:\FR\FM\09JYN1.SGM 09JYN1 37194 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 130 / Monday, July 9, 2007 / Notices Finally, the Department compared the EP LOT to the two home market LOTs. The Department finds that selling activities performed by Aragonesas for industrial users in the U.S. market and home market are similar. Because selling activities for industrial users in the U.S. market (the only LOT in the U.S. market) and industrial users in the home market are similar, the Department preliminarily determines that, for sales to the U.S. and home markets during the POR that were made at this same LOT (i.e., sales to industrial users), the Department will not make an LOT adjustment to NV. However, where the Department matches sales between the U.S. and home markets where the home market sale is made at a more advanced LOT (i.e., retail and distributor channels of distribution) than the sale in the U.S. market, the Department will grant an LOT adjustment to NV. For additional details regarding the Department’s LOT analysis, see Memorandum from Thomas Martin, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Edward Yang, Senior Enforcement Coordinator, ‘‘Level of Trade Analysis: Aragonesas ´ Industrias y Energıa S.A. (Aragonesas),’’ dated June 22, 2007. submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless the time period is extended by the Department, case briefs are to be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register (see 19 CFR 351.309(c)). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to arguments raised in case briefs, are to be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issues; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities cited. Further, we request that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing an electronic copy of the public version of such comments. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), in these preliminary results of review, we calculated Weighted– importer/customer–specific ad valorem Average Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (per- duty assessment rates based on the ratio centage) of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales Aragonesas Industrias y to the total entered value of the ´ Energıa S.A. .......................... 2.00 examined sales for that importer/ customer. Where the importer/ Disclosure and Public Hearing customer–specific assessment rate is We will disclose the calculations used above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent ad in our analysis to parties to this segment valorem or greater), we will instruct of the proceeding within five days of the CBP to assess the importer/customer– publication date of this notice. See 19 specific rate uniformly, as appropriate, CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties who on all entries of subject merchandise wish to request a hearing, or to during the POR that were entered by the participate if one is requested, must importer or sold to the customer. Within submit a written request to the Assistant 15 days of publication in the Federal Secretary for Import Administration, Register of the final results of review, Room B–099, within 30 days of the date the Department will issue instructions of publication of this notice. Requests to CBP directing it to assess the final should contain: (1) The party’s name, assessment rates (if above de minimis) address and telephone number; (2) the uniformly on all entries of subject number of participants; and (3) a list of merchandise made by the relevant issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR importer or sold to the relevant 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing customer during the POR. Pursuant to will be limited to those raised in the 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), the Department respective case briefs. Pursuant to 19 will instruct CBP to liquidate without CFR 351.309, interested parties may regard to antidumping duties any rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily determines that the weighted–average dumping margin for the period December 20, 2004, through May 31, 2006, is as follows: VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:59 Jul 06, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. The Department clarified its ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (‘‘Assessment Policy Notice’’). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by any company included in the final results of review for which the reviewed company did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the ‘‘All Others’’ rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash 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 this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating 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, or the original 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 continue to be 24.83 percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. See Final LTFV Determination. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. E:\FR\FM\09JYN1.SGM 09JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 130 / Monday, July 9, 2007 / Notices Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221. Dated: July 2, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7–13231 Filed 7–6–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–831] Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for Final Results of New Shipper Reviews Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Javier Barrientos or Irene Gorelik, 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) 482–2243 and (202) 482–6905, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES Background On April 23, 2007, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) issued the preliminary results of these new shipper reviews. See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 21219 (April 30, 2007) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). Extension of Time Limits for Final Results Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) require the Department to issue the preliminary results of a new shipper review within VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:59 Jul 06, 2007 Jkt 211001 180 days after the date on which the new shipper review was initiated and final results of a review within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued. The Department may, however, extend the deadline for completion of the final results of a new shipper review to 150 days if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated. See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). In order to allow parties additional time to submit comments regarding the Department’s Preliminary Results, the Department extended the deadline for the submission of case and rebuttal briefs. As a result of the extensions and the extraordinarily complicated issues raised in these reviews, including surrogate valuation and bona fides issues, it is not practicable to complete these new shipper reviews within the current time limit. Accordingly, the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of these final results to September 20, 2007 (150 days after issuance of the Preliminary Results), in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 28, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7–13225 Filed 7–6–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–823–810] Solid Agricultural Grade Ammonium Nitrate from Ukraine: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) and the International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) that revocation of the antidumping duty order on solid agricultural grade ammonium nitrate from Ukraine would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing notice of continuation of this antidumping duty order. AGENCY: EFFECTIVE DATE: PO 00000 Frm 00014 July 9, 2007. Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 37195 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Twyman or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3534 and (202) 482–0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 1, 2006, the Department initiated and the ITC instituted sunset reviews of the antidumping duty order on solid agricultural grade ammonium nitrate from Ukraine pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’).1 As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the order to be revoked.2 On June 27, 2007, the ITC determined pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on solid agricultural grade ammonium nitrate from Ukraine would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.3 Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order are solid, fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate (‘‘ammonium nitrate’’ or ‘‘subject merchandise’’) products, whether prilled, granular or in other solid form, with or without additives or coating, and with a bulk density equal to or greater than 53 pounds per cubic foot. Specifically excluded from this scope is solid ammonium nitrate with a bulk density less than 53 pounds per cubic foot (commonly referred to as industrial or explosive grade ammonium nitrate). The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at subheading 3102.30.00.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. 1 See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 71 FR 43443 (August 1, 2006); and Ammonium Nitrate From Ukraine Investigation No. 731-TA-894, 71 FR 43516 (August 1, 2006). 2 See Solid Agricultural Grade Ammonium Nitrate from Ukraine; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 71 FR 70508 (December 5, 2006). 3 See Certain Ammonium Nitrate From Ukraine Investigation No. 731-TA-894, 72 FR 35260 (June 27, 2007). E:\FR\FM\09JYN1.SGM 09JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 130 (Monday, July 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37189-37195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13231]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-469-814]


Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to timely requests by Aragonesas Industrias y 
Energ[iacute]a S.A. (``Aragonesas''), and Biolab, Inc., Clearon 
Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation (collectively, ``the 
Petitioners''), the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is 
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
chlorinated isocyanurates (``chlorinated isos'') from Spain with 
respect to Aragonesas. The period of review (``POR'') is December 20, 
2004, through May 31, 2006.
    The Department has preliminarily determined that Aragonesas made 
U.S. sales of chlorinated isos at prices less than normal value 
(``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results 
of administrative review, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. In addition, the Department has received 
information sufficient to warrant a successor-in-interest analysis in 
this administrative review. Based on this information, the Department 
preliminarily determines that Aragonesas is the successor-in-interest 
to Aragonesas Delsa S.A. (``Delsa'') for purposes of determining 
antidumping duty liability. Interested parties are invited to comment 
on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results of review 
no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 9, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin or Mark Manning at (202) 
482-3936 or (202) 482-5253,

[[Page 37190]]

respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 24, 2005, the Department published 
in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on chlorinated 
isocyanurates from Spain. See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain: 
Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 70 FR 36562 (June 24, 2005). In 
response to timely requests filed by the Petitioners and Aragonesas, 
the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative 
review. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 42626 
(July 27, 2006). The POR for this administrative review is December 20, 
2004, through May 31, 2006.
    On July 26, 2006, the Department issued an antidumping duty 
questionnaire to Aragonesas. On August 7, 2006, Aragonesas requested 
that the Department allow it to limit its reporting of cost of 
production (``COP'') and constructed value (``CV'') information in this 
review to exclude the last twelve days of 2004. In a letter dated 
August 9, 2006, the Department granted Aragonesas' request and 
permitted it to limit its COP and CV reporting to information based on 
its fiscal year (i.e., for calendar year 2005 and January through May, 
2006). On September 19, 2006, Aragonesas requested that the Department 
permit Aragonesas to report in its home market sales database only 
metric ton sack (``supersack'') sales in Spain, or alternatively, only 
supersack sales and the one or two most similar models sold in Spain. 
In a letter dated October 3, 2006, the Department rejected Aragonesas' 
request and informed Aragonesas that it was responsible for reporting 
all home market sales of subject merchandise, regardless of the 
packaging characteristics applicable to the sale. The Department found 
that Aragonesas' proposed reporting methodology excluded the 
possibility of similar matches with U.S. sales with different packaging 
characteristics.
    On September 13, 2006, the Department received Aragonesas' response 
to section A of the antidumping questionnaire. On October 3, 2006, the 
Department received Aragonesas' response to sections B and C of the 
antidumping questionnaire. On October 17, 2006, the Department received 
Aragonesas' response to section D of the antidumping questionnaire. We 
issued supplemental questionnaires to Aragonesas on November 7, 2006, 
November 21, 2006, December 1, 2006, December 12, 2006, January 24, 
2007, February 9, 2007, March 12, 2007, March 23, 2007, and April 17, 
2007. Aragonesas filed timely responses to each questionnaire.
    The Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results 
in this review twice, once by 90 days, and later by an additional 30 
days. See Chlorinated Isocyanurates From Spain: Extension of Time Limit 
for Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review, 72 FR 7603 
(February 16, 2007); Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain: Extension of 
Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review, 
72 FR 23800 (May 1, 2007).
    In its questionnaire responses, Aragonesas provided information 
regarding its relationship with an affiliated producer of chlorinated 
isos during the POR. After an analysis of this information, the 
Department determined that, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f), it is 
not appropriate to collapse Aragonesas and the affiliated producer for 
purposes of this review because: (a) The common ownership between the 
corporate group consisting of Ercros Industrial, S.A. (``Ercros'') 
(Aragonesas' parent company) and Aragonesas, and the affiliated 
producer, is not significant; (b) the management overlap between the 
corporate group consisting of Ercros and Aragonesas, and the affiliated 
producer, is not significant; and (c) although there are significant 
intertwined operations between the corporate group consisting of Ercros 
and Aragonesas, and the affiliated producer, most of these intertwined 
operations are between Ercros, rather than Aragonesas, and the 
affiliate. Because of the proprietary nature of the details of the 
Department's decision, a complete explanation is contained in the 
Memorandum from Abdelali Elouaradia, Office Director, to Stephen J. 
Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Chlorinated Isocyanurates 
from Spain: Collapsing Aragonesas Industrias y Energ[iacute]a, S.A. and 
[lsqb][ast] [ast] [ast][rsqb],'' dated May 2, 2007 (``Collapsing 
Memorandum''). Thus, the Department determined that there is no 
significant potential for manipulation of price if the affiliate does 
not receive the same antidumping duty rate as Aragonesas. See 
Collapsing Memorandum at 8.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are chlorinated isos. 
Chlorinated isos are derivatives of cyanuric acid, described as 
chlorinated s-triazine triones. There are three primary chemical 
compositions of chlorinated isos: (1) Trichloroisocyanuric acid 
(Cl3(NCO)3), (2) sodium dichloroisocyanurate (dihydrate) (NaCl2(NCO)3 
2H2O), and (3) sodium dichloroisocyanurate (anhydrous) (NaCl2(NCO)3). 
Chlorinated isos are available in powder, granular, and tableted forms. 
This order covers all chlorinated isos.
    Chlorinated isos are currently classifiable under subheadings 
2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, and 2933.69.6050 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). The tariff classification 
2933.69.6015 covers sodium dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and 
dihydrate forms) and trichloroisocyanuric acid. The tariff 
classifications 2933.69.6021 and 2933.69.6050 represent basket 
categories that include chlorinated isos and other compounds including 
an unfused triazine ring. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
scope of this order is dispositive.

Past Scope Rulings

    During the Department's less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') 
investigation of chlorinated isos from Spain, Arch Chemicals, Inc. 
(``Arch''), an importer, argued that its patented, formulated, 
chlorinated isos tablet is not covered by the scope of the 
investigation. In the Final LTFV Determination, the Department found 
that Arch's patented chlorinated isos tablet is included within the 
scope of this antidumping duty investigation. See Chlorinated 
Isocyanurates From Spain: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, 70 FR 24506 (May 10, 2005) (``Final LTFV 
Determination''); see also Memorandum from Holly A. Kuga, Senior Office 
Director, to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, ``Scope of the Antidumping Duty Investigations 
of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China and 
Spain,'' dated December 10, 2004.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``the Act''), during the period May 7 through 18, 2007, the Department 
verified the sales and cost information submitted by Aragonesas in its 
questionnaire responses provided during the course of this review. We 
used standard verification procedures including

[[Page 37191]]

examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original 
source documents provided by the respondent. See Memorandum from Thomas 
Martin, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to The File, 
``Verification of the Sales Response of Aragonesas Industrias y 
Energ[iacute]a, S.A. in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain,'' dated June 11, 2007; see also 
Memorandum from Michael P. Harrison to The File Regarding 
``Verification of the Cost Response of Aragonesas Industrias y 
Energ[iacute]a, S.A. in the Antidumping Review of Chlorinated 
Isocyanurates from Spain,'' dated June 27, 2007.

Successor-In-Interest Analysis

    In accordance with section 751(b) of the Act, the Department is 
conducting a successor-in-interest analysis to determine whether 
Aragonesas is the successor-in-interest to Delsa for purposes of 
determining antidumping liability with respect to the subject 
merchandise. In making such a successor-in-interest determination, the 
Department examines several factors including, but not limited to, 
changes in: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier 
relationships; and (4) customer base. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Bar 
from Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Rescission of Review, 70 FR 46480, 46481 (August 10, 2005) (``Stainless 
Steel Bar from Italy''); Notice of Final Results of Changed 
Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polychloroprene 
Rubber From Japan, 67 FR 58, 58-59 (January 2, 2002) (``Polychloroprene 
Rubber from Japan''); Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460, at Comment 1 
(May 13, 1992) (``Canadian Brass''). While no individual factor or 
combination of these factors will necessarily provide a dispositive 
indication, the Department will generally consider the new company to 
be the successor to the previous company if its resulting operation is 
not materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor. See, e.g., 
Stainless Steel Bar from Italy, 70 FR at 46481; Polychloroprene Rubber 
from Japan 67 FR at 58; Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway; 
Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 64 FR 9979, 9979-9980 (March 1, 1999); Fresh and Chilled 
Atlantic Salmon from Norway; Initiation and Preliminary Results of 
Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 
50880, 50881 (September 23, 1998) (unchanged in final results); 
Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel: Final Results of Changed 
Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944, at Comment 1 (February 14, 1994); 
Canadian Brass, at Comment 1. Thus, if the evidence demonstrates that, 
with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the 
new company operates as the same business entity as the former company, 
the Department will generally accord the new company the same 
antidumping duty treatment as its predecessor.
    We preliminarily determine that Aragonesas is the successor-in-
interest to Delsa. Aragonesas explained in its questionnaire response 
that Delsa was a separately incorporated company, wholly-owned by 
Uralita Group S.A. (``Uralita''), and held within Uralita's Chemical 
Division. The Chemical Division of Uralita consisted of three 
separately incorporated companies: Delsa, Aragonesas Industrias y 
Energ[iacute]a S.A., and Aiscondel S.A. In June 2005, Uralita sold the 
Chemical Division to Ercros. In December 2005, Ercros consolidated 
Delsa and the two other companies into one company, Aragonesas (the POR 
respondent). As a result of the consolidation in December 2005, Delsa's 
separate corporate board of three members was eliminated, and replaced 
by a sole director for all three Aragonesas business divisions that 
reports to the Ercros board. The Department has examined the 
information placed on the record by Aragonesas concerning 
successorship. Based upon our review, we preliminarily find that there 
were no changes in key managerial positions or the production 
facilities in the operating unit that produces subject merchandise. 
Furthermore, the Department preliminarily finds no evidence of any 
change in supplier relationships or the customer base stemming from the 
sale of Delsa, and the subsequent formation of Aragonesas.
    Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that there has been 
little change to the operating unit that produces subject merchandise 
as a result of the sale to a new corporate parent company, Ercros. The 
only change is the reorganized directorship, and the number of board 
members. Accordingly, the Department preliminarily finds that 
Aragonesas is the successor-in-interest to Delsa, and should receive 
the same antidumping duty treatment with respect to chlorinated isos as 
the respondent from the Final LTFV Determination, the former company 
Delsa.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether Aragonesas sold chlorinated isos in the United 
States at prices less than NV, the Department compared the export price 
(``EP'') of individual U.S. sales to the weighted-average NV of sales 
of the foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade in a 
month contemporaneous with the month in which the U.S. sale was made. 
See section 777A(d)(2) of the Act; see also section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 
the Act. Section 771(16) of the Act defines foreign like product as 
merchandise that is identical or similar to subject merchandise and 
produced by the same person and in the same country as the subject 
merchandise. Thus, we considered all products covered by the scope of 
the order, that were produced by the same person and in the same 
country as the subject merchandise, and sold by Aragonesas in the home 
market during the POR, to be foreign like products for the purpose of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to chlorinated isos sold in 
the United States.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, the Department 
considered all products produced by the respondent 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. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), the 
Department compared U.S. sales made by Aragonesas to sales made in the 
home market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends 
from three months prior to the U.S. sale until two months after the 
sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the 
comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to 
U.S. sales, the Department compared U.S. sales to sales of the most 
similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In 
making the product comparisons, the Department matched foreign like 
products based on the physical characteristics reported by Aragonesas 
in the following order: chemical structure, free available chlorine 
content, physical form, and packaging.

Export Price

    The Department based the price of Aragonesas' U.S. sales on EP 
methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the 
subject merchandise was sold directly by Aragonesas to the first 
unaffiliated

[[Page 37192]]

purchaser in the United States prior to importation and constructed 
export price (``CEP'') methodology was not otherwise indicated. We 
based EP on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States. Aragonesas reported its U.S. sales on either a delivered duty 
paid or delivered duty unpaid basis. We made deductions from the 
starting price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, 
international freight, foreign inland and marine insurance, foreign and 
U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. inland freight and U.S. duty, in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402.
    The Department excluded specified quantities of Aragonesas' 
merchandise sold in the U.S., for reasons that are of a business 
proprietary nature. See Memorandum from Thomas Martin, International 
Trade Compliance Analyst, to Edward Yang, Senior Enforcement 
Coordinator, ``Whether Certain Merchandise Sold By Aragonesas 
Industrias y Energ[iacute]a, S.A Constitutes Subject Merchandise and 
Foreign Like Product,'' dated June 22, 2007 (``Scope Memorandum'').

Normal Value

    After testing home market viability, whether home market sales to 
affiliates were at arm's-length prices, and whether home market sales 
were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV for Aragonesas as noted in 
the ``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' section of this notice.

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, 
the Department compared Aragonesas' 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. We 
excluded sales of merchandise that were not foreign like product or 
subject merchandise, for reasons that are of a business proprietary 
nature. See Scope Memorandum. Because Aragonesas' 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, the Department determined that its home market was viable.

B. Arm's-Length Test

    The Department may calculate NV based on a sale to an affiliated 
party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is 
comparable to the prices at which sales are made to parties not 
affiliated with the exporter or producer, i.e., sales at arm's-length. 
See 19 CFR 351.403(c). Sales to affiliated customers for consumption in 
the home market that are determined not to be at arm's-length are 
excluded from our analysis. In this proceeding, Aragonesas reported 
sales of the foreign like product to affiliated customers. To test 
whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, the Department 
compared the prices of sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated 
and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling 
expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c), and in accordance 
with the Department's practice, when the prices charged to an 
affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the 
prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to 
that sold to the affiliated party, we determined that the sales to the 
affiliated party were at arm's-length. See Antidumping Proceedings: 
Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 
69187 (November 15, 2002). Where Aragonesas' sales to affiliated home 
market customers did not pass the arm's-length test we excluded those 
sales from our analysis.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    We calculated a margin for Delsa in the Final LTFV Determination, 
which was the most recently completed segment of this proceeding as of 
the publication date of the initiation of this review. In those 
calculations, the Department disregarded some sales made at prices that 
were below COP. As a result, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department has determined that there 
are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Aragonesas, which the 
Department has preliminarily determined is the successor-in-interest to 
Delsa, sold the foreign like product at prices below the cost of 
producing the product during the instant POR. Accordingly, the 
Department initiated a sales below cost inquiry with respect to 
Aragonesas and required that Aragonesas provide a response to Section D 
of the questionnaire.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, for each foreign 
like product sold by Aragonesas during the POR, the Department 
calculated Aragonesas' weighted-average COP based on the sum of its 
materials and fabrication costs, plus amounts for general and 
administrative (``G&A'') expenses and interest expenses. See ``Test of 
Comparison Market Sales Prices'' section below for treatment of home 
market selling expenses. We relied on the COP information provided by 
Aragonesas in its questionnaire responses, except for the following 
instances where the information was not appropriately quantified or 
valued:
    i) We adjusted Aragonesas' G&A expense rate to include certain non-
operating expenses. We also adjusted the cost of goods sold used in the 
denominator of the expense rate calculation to correct an error in the 
amount of packing costs deducted.
    ii) We adjusted the financial expense rate to exclude interest 
income from fixed income securities and to exclude an account titled 
``Profit of Companies by the Participation Method.'' We also adjusted 
the cost of goods sold used in the denominator of the expense rate 
calculation to deduct an estimate of the amount of selling, general and 
administrative expenses for the consolidated group of companies.
For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum from 
Michael P. Harrison to Neal Halper, ``Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Results,'' dated July 
2, 2007.
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
    In order to determine whether sales were made at prices below the 
COP, on a product-specific basis, the Department compared Aragonesas' 
adjusted weighted-average COP to the home market sales of the foreign 
like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In 
accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, in 
determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less 
than the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: (1) in 
substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and (2) at 
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time in the normal course of trade. For purposes of this 
comparison, the Department used COP exclusive of selling and packing 
expenses. The prices were inclusive of billing adjustments and 
exclusive of any applicable movement charges, discounts and rebates, 
and direct and indirect selling expenses and packing expenses, revised 
where appropriate.
3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's home market sales of a

[[Page 37193]]

given product are at prices less than the COP, the Department does not 
disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because the Department 
determines that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made 
within an extended period of time and in ``substantial quantities.'' 
Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are 
at prices less than the COP, the Department disregards the below-cost 
sales because they: (1) were made within an extended period of time in 
``substantial quantities,'' in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) 
and (C) of the Act; and (2) based on our comparison of prices to the 
weighted-average COPs for the POR, were at prices which would not 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on the results 
of our test, we found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent 
of Aragonesas' home market sales were at prices less than the COP and, 
in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs 
within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales 
and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We based NV on the prices at which the foreign like product was 
first sold by Aragonesas for consumption in the home market, in the 
usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to 
the extent possible, at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the 
comparison U.S. sale. We excluded sales of merchandise that were not 
foreign like product, for reasons that are of a business proprietary 
nature. See Scope Memorandum. We calculated NV for Aragonesas using the 
reported gross unit prices to unaffiliated purchasers, or where 
appropriate, affiliated purchasers, which are based upon the following 
terms of delivery: carriage insurance paid, carriage paid, delivered 
duty paid, delivered duty unpaid, ex works, and free carrier. Where 
appropriate, the Department made adjustments to the starting price for 
billing adjustments. We deducted from the starting price, where 
appropriate, discounts and rebates, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. Based on our sales verification findings, 
we revised inland freight to account for certain unreported freight 
expenses. See Memorandum from Thomas Martin, International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, to the File, ``Calculation Memorandum for the 
Preliminary Results for Aragonesas Industrias y Energia S.A.,'' dated 
July 2, 2007 (``Calculation Memorandum''). We also made adjustments for 
differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical 
characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. In addition, the 
Department made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale for imputed 
credit expenses. We also deducted home market packing costs and added 
U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of 
the Act.

Currency Conversion

    Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we converted amounts 
expressed in foreign currencies into U.S. dollar amounts based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as reported by 
the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, the Department determines NV based on sales in the 
comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP sales in the U.S. 
market. The NV LOT is based on the starting price of the sales in the 
comparison market. Where NV is based on CV, the Department determines 
the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which the Department 
derives selling expenses, general and administrative expenses, and 
profit for CV, where possible. See Notice of Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Fresh Atlantic Salmon From Chile, 63 FR 2664 (January 
16, 1998) (unchanged in final determination). For EP sales, the U.S. 
LOT is based on the starting price of the sales to the U.S. market. For 
CEP sales, the U.S. LOT is based on the starting price of the sales to 
the U.S. market, as adjusted under section 772(d) of the Act. See 
Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1315 (Fed. 
Cir. 2001).
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than the EP 
and CEP sales, the Department examines stages in the marketing process 
and level of selling functions along the chain of distribution between 
the producer and the customer. 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). When the Department is 
unable to match U.S. sales to foreign like product sales in the 
comparison market at the same LOT as the EP sale, the Department may 
compare the U.S. sales to sales at a different LOT in the comparison 
market. In comparing EP sales at a different LOT in the comparison 
market, where the difference affects price comparability, as manifested 
by a pattern of consistent price differences between comparison-market 
sales at the NV LOT and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the 
export transaction, the Department makes a LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV LOT is at a more 
advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT and there is no basis 
for determining whether the difference between the NV and CEP LOTs 
affects price comparability, the Department adjusts NV under section 
773(A)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). Id. at 61732.
    In this administrative review, Aragonesas had only EP sales in the 
U.S. market, thus the CEP methodology was not employed in this review. 
The Department obtained information from Aragonesas regarding the 
marketing stages involved in making the reported home market and U.S. 
sales, including a description of the selling activities performed for 
each channel of distribution. Aragonesas reported that it made EP sales 
in the U.S. market through a single distribution channel (i.e., sales 
to industrial users). Because all sales in the United States are made 
through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that 
there is one LOT in the U.S. market. Aragonesas reported that it made 
sales in the home market through three channels of distribution (i.e., 
industrial customers, retail customers, and distributors). We compared 
the selling functions performed by Aragonesas for these three 
distribution channels and found that Aragonesas performed similar 
selling activities in the home market for the retail and distributor 
channels of distribution, and fewer selling activities for industrial 
home market customers. Thus, we preliminarily find that the retail and 
distributor channels of distribution constitute one NV LOT, while the 
channel of distribution for industrial customers is a second NV LOT. 
Moreover, we preliminarily find that the NV LOT for retail and 
industrial purchasers is at a more advanced stage than the NV LOT for 
industrial customers.

[[Page 37194]]

    Finally, the Department compared the EP LOT to the two home market 
LOTs. The Department finds that selling activities performed by 
Aragonesas for industrial users in the U.S. market and home market are 
similar. Because selling activities for industrial users in the U.S. 
market (the only LOT in the U.S. market) and industrial users in the 
home market are similar, the Department preliminarily determines that, 
for sales to the U.S. and home markets during the POR that were made at 
this same LOT (i.e., sales to industrial users), the Department will 
not make an LOT adjustment to NV. However, where the Department matches 
sales between the U.S. and home markets where the home market sale is 
made at a more advanced LOT (i.e., retail and distributor channels of 
distribution) than the sale in the U.S. market, the Department will 
grant an LOT adjustment to NV. For additional details regarding the 
Department's LOT analysis, see Memorandum from Thomas Martin, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Edward Yang, Senior 
Enforcement Coordinator, ``Level of Trade Analysis: Aragonesas 
Industrias y Energ[iacute]a S.A. (Aragonesas),'' dated June 22, 2007.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily determines 
that the weighted-average dumping margin for the period December 20, 
2004, through May 31, 2006, is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Weighted-
                 Manufacturer/Exporter                    Average Margin
                                                           (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aragonesas Industrias y Energ[iacute]a S.A.............           2.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Hearing

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this segment of the proceeding within five days of the publication 
date of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 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, Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication 
of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address 
and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of 
issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the 
hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written 
comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless the time 
period is extended by the Department, case briefs are to be submitted 
within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register (see 19 CFR 351.309(c)). Rebuttal briefs, which must 
be limited to arguments raised in case briefs, are to be submitted no 
later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. See 
19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are 
requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issues; 
(2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities 
cited. Further, we request that parties submitting written comments 
provide the Department with a diskette containing an electronic copy of 
the public version of such comments. Case and rebuttal briefs must be 
served on interested parties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication 
of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), in these preliminary results of review, we calculated 
importer/customer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on 
the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the 
examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for 
that importer/customer. Where the importer/customer-specific assessment 
rate is above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent ad valorem or greater), we 
will instruct CBP to assess the importer/customer-specific rate 
uniformly, as appropriate, on all entries of subject merchandise during 
the POR that were entered by the importer or sold to the customer. 
Within 15 days of publication in the Federal Register of the final 
results of review, the Department will issue instructions to CBP 
directing it to assess the final assessment rates (if above de minimis) 
uniformly on all entries of subject merchandise made by the relevant 
importer or sold to the relevant customer during the POR. Pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate 
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the 
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The final 
results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of 
antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final 
results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, 
where applicable.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) 
(``Assessment Policy Notice''). This clarification will apply to 
entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by any company 
included in the final results of review for which the reviewed company 
did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary (e.g., a 
reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United 
States. In such instances, the Department will instruct CBP to 
liquidate unreviewed entries at the ``All Others'' rate if there is no 
rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment 
Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash 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 this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the company 
listed above will be that established in the final results of this 
review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, de 
minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the 
cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not participating 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, or the original 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 
continue to be 24.83 percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by 
the LTFV investigation. See Final LTFV Determination. These 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

[[Page 37195]]

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.

    Dated: July 2, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-13231 Filed 7-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S