Solid Urea From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results and Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of the Antidumping Duty New-Shipper Review, 72988-72992 [07-6155]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72988-72992]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-6155]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-821-801]


Solid Urea From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results and 
Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of the Antidumping Duty New-
Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: December 26, 2007.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a 
new-shipper review of the antidumping duty order on solid urea from the 
Russian Federation manufactured and exported by MCC EuroChem 
(EuroChem). The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2006, through 
December 31, 2006. We preliminarily determine that, during the POR, 
EuroChem did not sell the subject merchandise at less than normal 
value.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0410 and (202) 482-1690, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On July 14, 1987, the Department published the antidumping duty 
order on solid urea from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. See 
Antidumping Duty Order; Urea From the Union of Soviet Socialist 
Republics, 52 FR 26367 (July 14, 1987). Following the break-up of the 
Soviet Union, the antidumpng duty order on solid urea from the Soviet 
Union was transferred to the individual members of the Commonwealth of 
Independent States. See Solid Urea from the Union of Soviet Socialist 
Republics; Transfer of the AD Order on Solid Urea

[[Page 72989]]

from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the Commonwealth of 
Independent States and the Baltic States and Opportunity to Comment, 57 
FR 28828 (June 29, 1992). The rate established in the less-than-fair-
value investigation for the Soviet Union was applied to each new 
independent state, including The Russian Federation.
    On January 25, 2007, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), the 
Department received a timely request from EuroChem for a new-shipper 
review of the antidumping duty order on solid urea from The Russian 
Federation. On February 27, 2007, the Department found that the request 
for review with respect to EuroChem met all of the regulatory 
requirements set forth in 19 CFR 351.214(b) and initiated an 
antidumping duty new-shipper review covering the period July 1, 2006, 
through December 31, 2006. See Solid Urea from Russia: Notice of 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty New-shipper Review, 72 FR 9930 (March 6, 
2007).
    On August 24, 2007, the Department published an extension of the 
time period for issuing the preliminary results of the new-shipper 
review by an additional 113 days to December 17, 2007, in accordance 
with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(I)(2). See Solid Urea From Russia: 
Extension of time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
New-Shipper Review, 72 FR 48617 (August 24, 2007).
    On September 27, 2007, the petitioner argued that the Department 
has the authority to rescind the new-shipper review and the sale under 
the concurrent administrative review.\1\ The petitioner urged the 
Department to exercise this authority because of the novelty and 
complexity of the issues before the Department 17, 2007, we issued a 
decision memorandum in which we determined not to rescind the new-
shipper review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We have initiated a concurrent administrative review which 
covers the same entry as is covered by this new-shipper review. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 48613 (August 24, 
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise under review is solid aurea, a high-nitrogen 
content fertilizer which is produced by reacting ammonia with carbon 
dioxide. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS) item number 
3102.10.00.00. Previously such merchandise was classified under item 
number 480.3000 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States. Although 
the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

Bona Fide Analysis

    Consistent with our practice, we analyzed whether the single U.S. 
transaction reported by EuroChem during the POR was a bona fide sale. 
Among the factors we examined were the price of the U.S. sale and the 
nature of EuroChem's reported U.S. customer. Based on our analysis, we 
preliminarily determine that EuroChem's sale constitutes a bona fide 
transaction. For our complete analysis, see the memorandum from Thomas 
Schauer to the File entitled ``Analysis of EuroChem's Bona Fides As A 
New Shipper'' dated December 17, 2007, on file in room B-09 of the main 
Department of Commerce building.

Qualification for New-Shipper Review

    On February 16, 2007, the Ad Hoc Committee of Domestic Nitrogen 
Producers (the petitioner) alleged that EuroChem was not entitled to a 
new-shipper review and requested that the Department rescind this 
review. On February 26, 2007, we received comments from EuroChem on 
this allegation, as well as reply comments from the petitioner on 
February 27, 2007.
    The petitioners contend that the antidumping statue requires that a 
``new shipper'' demonstrate that neither it nor its affiliates shipped 
during the period of investigation (POI). The petitioner asserts that 
EuroChem's affiliates, namely the plants producing solid urea which it 
owns, exported solid urea to the United States during the POI. The 
petitioner bases its assertion on its claim that both plants were among 
the urea producers included in the Soviet-wide entity that the 
Department examined in the less-than-fair-value investigation. The 
petitioner contends further that the change in ownership of the plants 
and The Russian Federation's transition to a market economy do not 
entitle EuroChem to a new-shipper review. Citing Solid Urea from the 
Russian Federation; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order, 70 FR 24528 (May 10, 2005) (Expedited Sunset 
Review), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at pages 8-10, 
the petitioner argues that neither privitization nor other changes in 
ownership result in the removal of a producer of subject merchandise 
from being subject to an existing order unless that company was found 
to be a successor to an already revoked or excluded company.
    While it is true that the physical plants now owned and operated by 
EuroChem were in existence and produced solid urea during the POI, the 
question before us is whether EuroChem as an entity qualifies for a 
new-shipper review. The Department's position in the Expedited Sunset 
Review to which the petitioner cites was not in response to determining 
whether a party could qualify as a new shipper. Rather, the Department 
addressed the following argument in the

Expedited Sunset Review:
    {T{time} he extraordinary facts involved in this sunset review--
the fact the country (the Soviet Union) and entity (Soyuzpromexport) 
involved in the original investigation and order no longer exist, 
the changes that have occurred in Russia and the fact that the 
margins were based on a methodology that no longer applies to 
Russia--means that there has never been a valid determination of 
dumping against existing producers of solid urea from Russia and 
necessitates that the Department refrain from relying on margins 
derived from the original investigation and consider other 
information in its sunset review. Such information, respondent 
interested parties argue, demonstrates that dumping is not likely to 
continue or recur if the order on solid urea from Russian were 
revoked.
Id.

    Thus, the position to which the petitioner cites had to do with 
whether the margins the Department found in the less-than-fair value 
investigation are likely to continue. The Department stated that 
``{a{time} ntidumping duty determinations are country-wide'' and that 
the ``order on solid urea from the Soviet Union covered all subject 
merchandise exported from the Soviet Union to be United States and 
applied to all producers of solid urea in the Soviet Union.'' Id. This 
would be true regardless of whether the production facilities existed 
at the time of the POI. Thus, we did not speak to the issue we are 
considering in this review.
    In order to ascertain whether EuroChem qualifies for a new-shipper 
review, we must ascertain whether it is the same entity, or a successor 
thereof, as existed during the POI. In making a successor-in-interest 
determination, the Department examines several factors including, but 
not limited to, changes in the following: (1) Management; (2) 
production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; (4) customer base. 
See, e.g., Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Orange Juice From Brazil, 72 
FR 1798, 51799 (September 11, 2007) (unchanged in final, 72 FR 59512 
(October 22, 207)).

[[Page 72990]]

While no single factor or combination of these factors will necessarily 
provide a dispositive indication of a successor-in-interest 
relationship, generally the Department will consider the new company to 
be the successor to the previous company if the new company's resulting 
operation is not materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor. Id. 
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 accord 
the new company the same antidumping treatment as its predecessor. Id. 
By inference, then, if the evidence happens to demonstrate that the new 
company does not operate as the same business entity as the former 
company, the Department will treat the new company as a different 
entity than its predecessor.
    As a preliminary matter, the ownership of the production facilities 
in question has changed completely since the POI. During the POI, the 
plants were wholly owned and operated by the Soviet government. See 
EuroChem's questionnaire response dated May 8, 2007, at pages 154 and 
169. As of 2001, the Russian government divested itself of all interest 
in either plant. See EuroChem's supplemental response dated July 11, 
2007, in answer to question 3 under Appendix V (page numbers not 
provided in submission). EuroChem, a privately owned entity, began to 
acquire ownership interest in these plants in 2002. See EuroChem's 
questionnaire response dated May 8, 2007, at pages 154 and 169.
    With respect to management, the top management of the two plants 
has changed completely since the POI. See EuroChem's questionnaire 
response dated May 8, 2007, at pages 116-7. In addition, the production 
facilities have undergone extensive modernization since the POI, 
including significant upgrades undertaken by EuroChem. See EuroChem's 
questionnaire response dated May 8, 2007, at pages 153-4, 168, and 
Confidential Exhibit 16.
    With respect to suppliers and customers, EuroChem reported that the 
plants did not keep records that would permit a comparison of the 
supplier relationships and customer base that existed during the POI 
(1986) and the present because, under Russian law, the maximum period 
for archiving such documents is five years. See EuroChem's supplemental 
response dated September 24, 2007, in answer to questions 1 and 2 under 
``Suppliers and Distributors'' (page numbers not provided in 
submission).
    Although we do not have usable information regarding the supplier 
relationships or the customer base, we find that the ownership and 
management of the production facilities at issue have changed 
completely since the POI. Moreover, there have been significant 
upgrades to the plants since the POI. As a result of these facts, we 
preliminarily determine that EuroChem is not the successor-in-interest 
to the Soviet entity we examined in the less-than-fair-value 
investigation. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that, based on 
the facts on the record of this review, EuroChem and its plants are 
entitled to a new-shipper review.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether EuroChem's sale of solid urea from The Russian 
Federation was made in the United States at less than normal value, we 
compared that export price to the normal value, as described in the 
``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
    When making this comparison in accordance with section 771(16) of 
the Act, we considered all products sold in the home market as 
described in the ``Scope of the Order'' section of this notice, above, 
that were in the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining 
an appropriate product comparison to the U.S. sale. Because we did not 
find sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the 
ordinary course of trade, we compared the U.S. sale to those home-
market sales of the most similar merchandise that were most 
contemporaneous with the U.S. sale in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.414(e). Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the 
export price of the single U.S. transaction to the weighted-average 
price of sales of the foreign like product for the calendar month that 
corresponds most closely to the calendar month of the individual export 
sale.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we compared products 
produced by EuroChem and sold in the U.S. and home markets on the basis 
of the comparison product which was closest in terms of the physical 
characteristics to the product sold in the United States. These 
characteristics, in the order of importance, are for, grade, nitrogen 
content, size, urea-formaldehyde content, other additive/conditioning 
agent, and biuret content.

Export Price

    We used the export price for EuroChem's U.S. sale in accordance 
with section 772(a) of the Act because the subject merchandise was sold 
directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior 
to importation and the use of our constructed export-price methodology 
was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of the record. We based 
export price on the packed price to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for 
foreign inland-freight expenses, foreign brokerage and handling 
expenses, ocean-freight expenses, U.S. customs duties, and U.S. 
brokerage and handling expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) 
of the Act.
    Regarding the U.S. date of sale, EuroChem argued that we should use 
the contract date as the date of sale for its U.S. sale. The 
Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.401(i) state that the Department 
will normally use the date of invoice as the date of sale, unless a 
different date better reflects the date on which the material terms of 
sale are established. We have analyzed the data on the record and 
preliminarily find that the material terms of the sale were set at the 
contract date, given that the terms did not change prior to invoicing. 
Further, because this is the first time that the Department is 
conducting a review of EuroChem, there is no prior evidence on the 
record that the terms of sale were changeable after the contract date. 
Therefore, in accordance with our practice, we preliminarily find that 
the appropriate U.S. date of sale is the contract date. See Certain 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results and 
Partial Recession of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 
26455, 26458 (May 5, 2006) (unchanged in final, 71 FR 65082 (November 
7, 2006)).

Normal Value

A. Home-Market Viability and Selection of Comparison Market

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating normal 
value (i.e., the aggregate volume of home-market sales of the foreign 
like product is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales), we compared the volume of EuroChem's home-market sales of the 
foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sale of subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(c) of the Act. Based 
on this comparison, we determined that EuroChem had a viable

[[Page 72991]]

home market during the POR. Consequently, we based normal value on 
home-market sales to unaffiliated purchasers made in the usual 
quantities in the ordinary course of trade.

B. Cost of Production

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(I) of the Act, there were 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that EuroChem made home-market 
sales at prices below its cost of production (COP) during the POR based 
on information contained in the cost allegation filed properly by the 
petitioner. As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to 
determine whether EuroChem made home-market sales during the POR at 
prices below its COP. See the Memorandum from Thomas Schauer and 
Michael Harrison entitled, ``The Petitioner's Allegation of Sales Below 
the Cost of Production for EuroChem'' dated August 27, 2007 (EuroChem 
Cost-Allegation Memo).
    In its June 5, 2007, cost allegation, the petitioner alleged that 
EuroChem's reported costs cannot be used to determine whether EuroChem 
made sales in the home market below its cost of production because 
natural gas is an important raw-material input into solid urea and 
prices in the Russian natural gas market are distorted. In the EuroChem 
Cost-Allegation Memo, we found that ``the evidence on the record 
indicates that the Russian natural gas sector is still, as a whole, in 
the early stages or reform and is a sector where prices may be based 
neither on market principles nor on long-term cost recovery'' and, 
``{b{time} ecause of these potential market distortions in the gas 
segment, further scrutiny of EuroChem's gas costs is warranted.'' See 
EuroChem Cost-Allegation Memo at 9.
    On September 19, 2007, we sent a letter to interested parties 
soliciting comments on whether and how to adjust EuroChem's natural-gas 
costs. On November 5, 2007, we received comments form the government of 
The Russian Federation and on November 7, 2007, we received comments 
from the petitioner and from EuroChem. We received rebuttal comments 
from EuroChem on November 19, 2007, and from the petitioner on December 
7, 2007.
    We continue to consider the comments made by interested parties, 
some of which came in as recently as December 7, 2007. Due to the 
complexity of this issue, we are still in the process of analyzing all 
of the data and arguments and, thus, we have not had an opportunity to 
perform the cost test for these preliminary results. Because we did not 
perform the cost test and because we found contemporaneous home-market 
matches of merchandise identical to the U.S. sale, we did not use 
EuroChem's cost-of-production or constructed-value (CV) information in 
calculating the margin for these preliminary results of new-shipper 
review.
    Before we issue the final results of this new-shipper review, we 
will issue a decision memorandum with respect to the issue of natural 
gas. At that point, we will perform the cost test on EuroChem's home-
market sales and, if appropriate, recalculate EuroChem's margin. We 
will also incorporate the CV, if necessary, into our margin 
recalculation. We will then disclose our calculations to interested 
parties and we will provide all interested parties with adequate time 
to comment on this issue.

C. Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine normal value based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade as export price. The normal-value 
level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison 
market or, when normal value is based on constructed value, that of the 
sales from which we derive selling expenses, general and administrative 
expenses, and profit. See 19 CFR 351.412(C)(1)(iii). For export price, 
the U.S. level of trade is also the level of the starting-price sale, 
which is usually from the exporter to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. 
See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(i).
    To determine whether normal-value sales are at a different level of 
trade than export-price sales, we examine stages in the market process 
and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the 
producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales 
are at a different level of trade and the difference affects price 
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price 
differences between the sales on which normal value is based and 
comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export 
transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    EuroChem claimed that is sold solid urea at a single level of trade 
in its home market. Specifically, EuroChem performed the same selling 
process and functions for all of its home-market sales. After analyzing 
the data on the record with respect to these functions, we find that 
EuroChem made all home-market sales at a single marketing stage (i.e., 
one level for trade) in the home market. In addition, because EuroChem 
only reported one U.S. sale during the POR, we find that there is a 
single marketing stage (i.e., one level of trade) in the U.S. market. 
Furthermore, because EuroChem performed different levels of personnel 
training/exchange, distributor/dealer training, order input/processing, 
direct sales, personnel and sales/marketing support for home-market 
sales than for the U.S. sale, we find that EuroChem's U.S. sale was 
made at a different level of trade than its home-market sales. See, 
e.g., 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), and Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof 
from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Intent to Rescind Review in Part, 72 FR 31271, 31276 (June 6, 2007) 
(unchanged in final, 72 FR 58053 (October 12, 2007)).
    Although the level of trade of EuroChem's home-market sales is 
different than the level of trade of its U.S. sale, we are unable to 
make a determination that there is a pattern of price differences 
between the levels of trade because there is only one level of trade in 
the home market. Furthermore, because there is no home-market level of 
trade which corresponds to the U.S. level of trade, we are unable to 
quantify a level-of-trade adjustment. Accordingly, we are unable to 
make a level-of-trade adjustment. See, e.g., Antifriction Bearings 
(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, 
Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews. 62 FR 2081, 2106 (January 
15, 1997).

D. Calculation of Normal Value

    We based normal value on the starting prices to home-market 
customers. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we deducted 
inland-freight expenses EuroChem incurred on its home-market sales. 
Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we made circumstance-
of-sale adjustments for imputed credit expenses. Pursuant to section 
773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home-market packing costs and added 
U.S. packing costs. Because we calculated normal value using sales of 
similar merchandise, we also made adjustments for differences in cost 
attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the 
merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.411.

[[Page 72992]]

Verifications

    We conducted a sales verfication of EuroChem from October 22, 2007, 
through October 24, 2007. We have made changes, as appropriate, to 
EuroChem's data to reflect our verification findings. See the sales 
verification report dated November 13, 2007, and the computer programs 
attached to the preliminary results analysis memorandum dated December 
17, 2007, for the specific changes we made. In addition, we intend to 
conduct a verfication of EuroChem's cost submission after we issue 
these preliminary results.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a 
dumping margin of 0.00 percent exists for EuroChem for the period July 
1, 2006, through December 31, 2006.

Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of the New-Shipper Review

    Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act requires the Department to 
issue the final results of a new-shipper review of an antidumping duty 
order within 90 days after the date the preliminary determination is 
issued. The Act provides further that, if the case is extraordinarily 
complicated, the Department may extend the 90-day period to 150 days.
    We determine that this new-shipper review is extraordinarily 
complicated and that it is not possible to complete the final results 
within 90 days of issuance of these preliminary results. Specifically, 
we find that the issues associated with whether and how to adjust 
EuroChem's natural-gas costs are extraordinarily complicated.
    Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2), we are extending the time period for issuing 
the final results of this review by 60 days to May 15, 2008.

Public Comment

    We will disclose the documents resulting from our analysis to 
parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of 
this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days 
of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. If a hearing 
is requested, the Department will notify interested parties of the 
hearing schedule.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results of this review. Because we have not yet made a determination 
with respect to the treatment of costs for natural gas, we will notify 
interested parties of the schedule for filing case briefs and rebuttal 
briefs after we issue the decision memorandum, which will include an 
explanation of our decision, a cost calculation, sales-below-cost test, 
and margin recalculation.
    We intend to issue the final results of this new-shipper review, 
including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written 
comments, within 150 days after the date on which the preliminary 
results are issued. See 19 CFR 351.214(I)(1).

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue 
assessment instructions for EuroChem directly to CBP 15 days after the 
date of publication of the final results of this new-shipper review.
    Because we found no margin for the U.S. sale subject to this new-
shipper review, we preliminarily intend to instruct CBP to liquidate 
the entry without regard to antidumping duties. If we calculate a 
margin for the U.S. sale subject to this review for final results of 
review, because we have entered the value of EuroChem's U.S. sale, we 
will calculate an importer-specific assessment rate based on the ratio 
of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined 
sale to the total entered value of the sale pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1).
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification applies to entries of 
subject merchandise during the POR produced by EuroChem where EuroChem 
did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States. 
In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries 
at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate 
company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this 
clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

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 the new-shipper review, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rate for EuroChem (i.e., 
for subject merchandise both manufactured and exported by EuroChem) 
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 listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be 
the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if 
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original less-
than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash-
deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period 
for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash-deposit rate 
for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 64.93 
percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. See 
 Urea From the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 52 FR 19557 (May 26, 1987). These 
cash-deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

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.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214.

    Dated: December 17, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary, for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 07-6155 Filed 12-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-D5-M