Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 42390-42392 [07-3764]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 148 (Thursday, August 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42390-42392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3764]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-812]


Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Preliminary Results of the 2005-
2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commence is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from Thailand. 
The period of review is July 1, 2005, through May 3, 2006. This review 
covers imports of furfuryl alcohol from one producer/exporter.
    We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise have 
not been made at less than normal value. If these preliminary results 
are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection to liquidate entries of furfuryl alcohol from 
Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. without regard to antidumping 
duties. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: August 2, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Damian Felton or Brandon Farlander, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0133 and (202) 482-0182, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 25, 1995, the Department published an antidumping duty 
order on furfuryl alcohol from Thailand. See Furfuryl Alcohol from 
Thailand: Notice of Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determinant and 
Order, 60 FR 38035 (July 25, 1995). On July 3, 2006, the Department 
published its Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 
71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). On July 28, 2006, Penn Specialty Chemicals, 
Inc. (``petitioner'') requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of Indorama Chemicals (Thailand), Ltd. 
(``IRCT''), a producer and exporter of furfuryl alcohol from Thailand. 
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), we published a notice of 
initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on August 30, 
2006. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006) (``Furfuryl 
Alcohol Initiation'').
    An antidumping duty questionnaire was sent to IRCT on September 6, 
2006. We received timely responses to the questionnaire from IRCT on 
September 27, 2006, and October 27, 2006. On April 3, 2007, in 
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), we published a notice extending the time limit 
for the completion of the preliminary results in this case by 120 days 
(i.e., until no later than July 31, 2007). See Furfuryl Alcohol from

[[Page 42391]]

Thailand: Notice of Extension for Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 
the 2005-2006 Antidumping Administrative Review, 72 FR 15863 (April 3, 
2007).
    We issued a supplemental questionnaire regarding IRCT's responses 
to sections A, B, and C of the Department's original questionnaire on 
May 3, 2007, and received a timely response from IRCT on May 25, 2007. 
We issued an additional supplemental questionnaire on June 18, 2007, 
and received a timely response to the second supplemental questionnaire 
on June 22, 2007.

Period of Review

    The period of review (``POR'') covers July 1, 2005, through May 3, 
2006.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On August 30, 2006, the Department published a notice of 
initiation for this administrative review covering the period July 
1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. See Furfuryl Alcohol Initiation. 
However, since the initiation, the Department has revoked this order 
effective May 4, 2006. See Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand; Final 
Results of the Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 
and Revocation of the Order, 72 FR 9729 (March 5, 2006). Therefore, 
the revised POR is now July 1, 2005 through May 3, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is furfuryl alcohol 
(C4H3OCH2OH). Furfuryl alcohol is a 
primary alcohol, and is colorless or pale yellow in appearance. It is 
used in the manufacture of resins and as a wetting agent and solvent 
for coating resins, nitrocellulose, cellulose acetate, and other 
soluble dyes.
    The product subject to this order is classifiable under subheading 
2932.13.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
proceeding is dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

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

Product Comparisons

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

Export Price

    We calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act 
because the merchandise was sold to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States prior to importation by the exporter or producer and 
constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We 
based EP on the packed delivered, freight-on-board, cash-in-freight, or 
the delivery-duty paid price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States. We made deductions from the starting price for movement 
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These 
deductions included foreign inland freight, country of manufacture 
inland insurance, brokerage and handling, international freight, and 
marine insurance. We also made adjustments to the starting price for 
duty drawback in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
    It is normally the Department's practice to confirm that the duty 
drawback adjustment claimed by the respondent meets the Department's 
two-pronged criteria for determining whether the duty drawback 
adjustment is appropriate. See Rajinder Pipes, Ltd. v. United States, 
70 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (CIT 1999); see also Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Light-Walled 
Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 69 FR 53675 (September 2, 2004) 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; and 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and 
Parts Thereof from the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 29310 (May 22, 2006) 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 49. We have 
determined that only one of the reported inputs used in the projection 
of furfuryl alcohol meets the two-pronged criteria. Therefore, we made 
an adjustment to the starting price for duty drawback to account for 
import duties paid on the importation of a single input used in the 
production of the subject merchandise. for an in-depth explanation of 
these changes, see Memorandum from Case Analyst to File, ``Preliminary 
Results Calculation Memorandum for Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) 
Ltd.,'' (``Prelim Calc Memo'') dated July 25, 2007, available in the 
Department's CRU.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared the volume of IRCT's home market sales of the foreign like 
product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act. Because IRCT's 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was 
greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the 
subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable.

Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP. Sales are made at different 
LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in 
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for 
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.; 
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa. 62 
FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the 
comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than 
the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market 
(i.e., the ``chain of distribution''),\2\ including selling 
functions,\3\ class of customer (``customer

[[Page 42392]]

category''), and the level of selling expenses for each sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The marketing process in the United States and comparison 
market begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final 
user or consumer. The chain of distribution between the two may have 
many or few links, and the respondent's sales occur somewhere along 
this chain.
    \3\ Selling functions associated with a particular chain of 
distribution helps us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a 
particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we 
have organized the common selling functions into four major 
categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and 
delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty 
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying 
levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales, we consider the 
starting prices before any adjustments. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. 
United States, et. al., 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 
(affirming this methodology).
    When the Department is unable to match U.S. EP sales to sales of 
the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as 
the EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a 
different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales to a 
different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it 
practical, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the 
Act.
    IRCT reported one LOT in the home market and one LOT in the U.S. 
market. IRCT reported making sales only to end-users in the home 
market. In the United States, IRCT reported that it made sales only to 
a trading company. We examined the information IRCT reported regarding 
its marketing process for making the reported comparison market and 
U.S. sales, including the type and level of selling activities 
performed and customer categories. Specifically, we considered the 
extent to which the sales process, freight services, warehouse/
inventory maintenance, and warranty services varied with respect to the 
different customer categories (i.e., distributors and end-users). Based 
on our analysis, we found that the single LOT in the United States is 
identical to the single LOT in the comparison market. Thus, we 
preliminarily find that a LOT adjustment for IRCT is not warranted.

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on the delivered prices to unaffiliated 
customers. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(b)(ii) of the Act, we 
made deductions for inland freight and inland insurance. Furthermore, 
where appropriate, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances 
of sale (``COS'') in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(c)(iii) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.410 by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on 
comparison market sales (credit expenses), and adding U.S. direct 
selling expenses (credit expenses). We deducted inventory carrying 
costs incurred on comparison market sales, and added U.S. inventory 
carrying cost. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. 
packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the 
Act.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily find that the following dumping margin exists for 
the period July 1, 2005, through May 3, 2006.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                  Manufacturer/Exporter                   Average Margin
                                                           (Percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd.......................          * 0.39
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This is a de minimis rate.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will 
determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each 
importer (or customer) of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the 
final results of this administrative review, if any importer (or 
customer)-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are 
above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will 
issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping 
duties on appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we 
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 Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final 
results of this administrative review.

Cash Deposit Rates

    On March 5, 2006, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.222(i)(1)(ii), the Department revoked the antidumping duty 
order on furfuryl alcohol from Thailand (see Furfuryl Alcohol from 
Thailand; Final Results of the Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping 
Duty Order and Revocation of the Order, 72 FR 9729 (March 5, 2006)). 
The effective date of the revocation is May 4, 2007. As a result of 
this action, we do not intend to issue cash deposit instructions.

Public Comment

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). A hearing, if 
requested, will be 44 days after the publication of this notice, or the 
first business day thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be 
limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Interested 
parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 
CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, 
limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no 
later than five days after submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with 
the argument (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the 
argument, and (3) a table of authorities.
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such written briefs or hearing, no later than 120 days after 
publication of these preliminary results.

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

    Dated: July 25, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 07-3764 Filed 8-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M