Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland; Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 16180-16185 [E9-8113]

Download as PDF 16180 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Notices collects comprehensive quarterly data on foreign airline operators’ revenues and expenses in the United States. There are no changes proposed to the form or instructions. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE II. Method of Collection Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland; Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review The survey forms will be sent to respondents each quarter via U.S. mail; the surveys are also available from our Web site. Respondents return the surveys one of four ways: U.S. mail, electronically using BEA’s electronic collection system (eFile), fax or e-mail. Responses will be due within 50 days after the close of each calendar quarter. III. Data OMB Number: 0608–0068. Form Number: BE–9. Type of Review: Regular submission. Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations. Estimated Number of Respondents: 240. Estimated Time per Response: 8 hours. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,920. Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0. IV. Request for Comments dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency’s estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: April 3, 2009. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E9–8032 Filed 4–8–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–06–P VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Apr 08, 2009 Jkt 217001 International Trade Administration [A–405–803] AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from Aqualon Company, a division of Hercules Inc., (the petitioner) and respondents CP Kelco OY and CP Kelco U.S., Inc. (collectively, CP Kelco), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on purified carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from Finland. The review covers exports of the subject merchandise to the United States produced by CP Kelco. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008. We preliminarily find that CP Kelco made sales at less than normal value (NV) during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties based on differences between the export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP) and NV. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 2009 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyler Weinhold or Robert James, AD/ CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1121 or (202) 482– 0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department published the antidumping duty order on CMC from Finland on July 11, 2005. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden, 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005). On July 11, 2008, the Department published the notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of CMC from Finland for the period July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Administrative Review, 73 FR 39948 (July 11, 2008). On July 11, 2008, CP Kelco requested an administrative review for July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008. On July 14, 2008, the petitioner requested a review of CP Kelco for the same period. On August 26, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 50308 (August 26, 2008). On October 3, 2008, the Department issued its standard antidumping questionnaire (the antidumping questionnaire) to CP Kelco. CP Kelco submitted its response to section A of the Department’s antidumping questionnaire on September 30, 2008 (CP Kelco’s Section A Response). CP Kelco submitted its response to sections B and C of the antidumping questionnaire on October 20, 2008 (CP Kelco’s Sections B and C Response). Because the Department disregarded sales at prices below the cost of production in the most recently completed administrative review as of the initiation of the instant review, we are conducting a sales-at-below-cost investigation in this review. See Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland; Notice of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 44106 (August 7, 2007) (unchanged in Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 70568 (December 12, 2007). Accordingly, CP Kelco submitted its response to section D of the antidumping questionnaire on October 31, 2008 (CP Kelco’s Section D Response). On November 10, 2008, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to CP Kelco regarding its responses to sections A, B, and C of the antidumping questionnaire. CP Kelco submitted its response to the Department’s supplemental questionnaire on December 2, 2008 (CP Kelco’s Supplemental Sections A, B, and C Response). On January 5, 2009, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to CP Kelco regarding its responses to section D of the antidumping questionnaire. CP Kelco submitted its response to the Department’s supplemental questionnaire on January 22, 2009 (CP Kelco’s Supplemental Section D Response). On January 27, 2009, CP Kelco submitted data and electronic versions of exhibits from CP E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM 09APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Notices Kelco’s Supplemental Section D Response. dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order is all purified carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), sometimes also referred to as purified sodium CMC, polyanionic cellulose, or cellulose gum, which is a white to offwhite, non-toxic, odorless, biodegradable powder, comprising sodium CMC that has been refined and purified to a minimum assay of 90 percent. Purified CMC does not include unpurified or crude CMC, CMC Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, and CMC that is cross-linked through heat treatment. Purified CMC is CMC that has undergone one or more purification operations which, at a minimum, reduce the remaining salt and other by-product portion of the product to less than ten percent. The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheading 3912.31.00. This tariff classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of CMC in the United States were made at less than NV, we compared U.S. price to NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price,’’ ‘‘Constructed Export Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), we calculated monthly weighted-average NVs and compared these to individual U.S. transactions. Because we determined CP Kelco made both EP and CEP sales during the POR, we used both EP and CEP as the basis for U.S. price in our comparisons. We used the invoice date, as recorded in CP Kelco’s normal books and records, as the date of sale for CP Kelco’s EP, CEP, and home market sales. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). For a more detailed discussion of these calculations, see Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold, to the File, ‘‘Analysis of Data Submitted by CP Kelco Oy and CP Kelco U.S. Inc. (collectively, CP Kelco) in the Preliminary Results of the 2007–2008 Administrative Review of Purified Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from Finland,’’ dated March 27, 2009 (Preliminary Analysis Memorandum). Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered all products produced by CP Kelco covered by the description in the ‘‘Scope of the VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Apr 08, 2009 Jkt 217001 Order’’ section, above, and sold in the home market during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We relied on five characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to home market sales of the foreign like product (listed in order of priority): 1) grade; 2) viscosity; 3) degree of substitution; 4) particle size; and 5) solution gel characteristics. See the antidumping questionnaire at Appendix 5. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of these product characteristics and the reporting instructions listed in the antidumping questionnaire. Because there were sales of identical or similar merchandise in the home market suitable for comparison to each U.S. sale, we did not compare any U.S. sales to constructed value (CV). Export Price Section 772(a) of the Tariff Act defines EP as ‘‘the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States,’’ as adjusted under section 772(c). In accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act, we used EP for a number of CP Kelco’s U.S. sales. We preliminarily find that these sales are properly classified as EP sales because these sales were made before the date of importation and were sales made directly to unaffiliated U.S. customers, and because our CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States. We made adjustments for price or billing adjustments and discounts, where applicable. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, which included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, international freight, marine insurance, and U.S. brokerage and handling. Additionally, we made adjustments for direct selling expenses (credit expenses) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act. CP Kelco incurred certain expenses as a result of factoring certain sales (i.e., selling the accounts receivable associated with those sales to an affiliated financial institution in PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 16181 exchange for an immediate payment). For factored sales, we made an adjustment to gross unit price based upon the difference between the face value of the accounts receivables factored and the immediate payment received upon the factoring of those receivables (factoring discount). We reduced movement expenses, where appropriate, by the amount of freight revenue paid by the customer to CP Kelco. In accordance with our practice in the recently completed administrative review of polyethylene retail carrier bags from the People’s Republic of China, we capped the amount of freight revenue deducted at no greater than the amount of movement expenses in the home market. See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 6857 (February 11, 2009) (Bags from the PRC). As the Department explained in Bags from the PRC, section 772 (c)(1) of the Tariff Act provides that the Department shall increase the price used to establish either export price or constructed export price in only the following three instances: (A) when not included in such price, the cost of all containers and coverings and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the subject merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States; (B) the amount of any import duties imposed by the country of exportation which have been rebated, or which have not been collected, by reason of the exportation of the subject merchandise to the United States; and (C) the amount of any countervailing duty imposed on the subject merchandise under subtitle A to offset an export subsidy. In addition, section 351.401(c) of the Department’s regulations directs the Department to use a price in the calculation of U.S. price which is net of any price adjustments that are reasonably attributable to the subject merchandise. The term ‘‘price adjustments’’ is defined under 19 CFR 351.102(b) as a ‘‘change in the price charged for subject merchandise or the foreign like product, such as discounts, rebates, and post-sale adjustments, that are reflected in the purchaser’s net outlay.’’ In past cases, we have declined to treat freight-related revenues as addition to U.S. price under section 772(c) of the Tariff Act or price adjustments under 19 CFR 351.102(b). Rather, we have incorporated these revenues as offsets to movement expenses because they relate to the transportation of subject merchandise. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden: Preliminary E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM 09APN1 16182 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Notices dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 51414 (September 7, 2007) (unchanged in Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 12950 (March 1, 2008)). Further, our offset practice limits the granting of an offset to situations where a respondent incurs expenses and realized revenue for the same type of activity. See Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 51414, 51415. According to CP Kelco’s responses, freight revenues are revenues received from customers for invoice items covering transportation expenses, and arise when freight is not included in the selling price under the applicable terms of delivery, but when CP Kelco arranges and prepays freight for the customer. See CP Kelco’s Section B Response at B– 25 and CP Kelco’s Section C response at C–27. Therefore, we have limited the amount of the freight revenue used to offset CP Kelco’s movement expenses to the amount of movement expenses incurred on the sale of subject merchandise. See Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at page 2. Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(b) of the Tariff Act, CEP is ‘‘the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter,’’ as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d) of the Tariff Act. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Tariff Act, we used CEP for a number of CP Kelco’s U.S. sales because CP Kelco sold merchandise to affiliate CP Kelco U.S., Inc. in the United States which, in turn, sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. customers. We preliminarily find that these U.S. sales are properly classified as CEP sales because they occurred in the United States and were made through CP Kelco U.S. Inc. to unaffiliated U.S. customers. We based CEP on the prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made adjustments for price or billing adjustments, early payment discounts, and factoring charges,1 where applicable. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, 1 See EP section, above. VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Apr 08, 2009 Jkt 217001 which included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, customs duties, U.S. brokerage, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. warehousing expenses. We also reduced movement expenses, where appropriate, by the amount of freight revenue paid by the customer to CP Kelco. In accordance with our treatment of freight revenue on U.S. sales of subject merchandise (see ‘‘Export Price’’ section, above), we capped the amount of freight revenue deducted at no greater than the amount of movement expenses in the home market. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Tariff Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses (imputed credit expenses), inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Tariff Act. Further-Manufactured U.S. Sales During the POR, CP Kelco made certain sales of subject merchandise to affiliated companies in the United States. See CP Kelco’s Section A Response at pages B–46 to B–48, and exhibit A–27. This merchandise was subsequently further manufactured by the U.S. affiliates into non-subject merchandise, which was then sold to unaffiliated U.S. customers. See CP Kelco’s Section A Response at pages A– 46 to A–48. The total quantity of this material represented less than 10 percent of CP Kelco’s total U.S. sales. Id. Section 772(e) of the Tariff Act provides that when the value added in the United States by an affiliated party is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise, the Department shall use one of the following prices to determine CEP if there is a sufficient quantity of sales to provide a reasonable basis of comparison and the use of such sales is appropriate: (1) the price of identical subject merchandise sold by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated person; or (2) the price of other subject merchandise sold by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated person. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.402 (c)(2), we conducted an analysis to determine whether the value added to the subject merchandise by the affiliated customers after importation in the United States was at least 65 percent of the price charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser for the merchandise as sold in the United States. See 19 CFR 351.402(c)(2). Our analysis showed that the value added by the affiliated PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 customers was significantly greater than 65 percent. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that the value added in the United States by the affiliated customers exceeds substantially the value of the subject merchandise. Id. See also CP Kelco’s Section A Response at pages A–46 to A– 48, and exhibit A–27. We then considered whether there were sales of identical subject merchandise or other subject merchandise sold in sufficient quantities by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated person that could provide a reasonable basis of comparison. In this case, there were sales of identical subject merchandise or other subject merchandise sold in sufficient quantities by CP Kelco U.S. to unaffiliated persons that could provide a reasonable basis for calculating CEP for CP Kelco’s sales of further manufactured merchandise. See Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at page 1. Decisions as to the appropriate methodology for determining CEP for sales involving further manufacturing generally must be made on a case-bycase basis. See, e.g., Certain CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 51584, 51586 (September 10, 2007) (unchanged in final results, 73 FR 14220 (March 17, 2008)). In the instant review, we find the quantity of sales of merchandise to unaffiliated customers is sufficiently large to serve as a reasonable basis for the calculation of CEP. The value added to the CMC after importation is very substantial and the further manufacturing very complex. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.402(c)(3), and as in the 2006–2007 review of this order, we have used the preliminary weightedaverage dumping margins calculated on sales of other subject merchandise sold to unaffiliated persons to determine the dumping margins for furthermanufactures sales. See Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland; Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 45948, 45950 (August 7, 2008) (unchanged in Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 75397 (December 11, 2008)). Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Market In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM 09APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Notices home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the respondent’s volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Tariff Act. As CP Kelco’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 of the subject merchandise, we determined the home market was viable. Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. B. Cost of Production Analysis In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act, we are conducting a sales-below-cost investigation in this review because the Department disregarded some of CP Kelco’s sales as having been made at prices below the cost of production in the previous administrative review. See Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 70568 (December 12, 2007). dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES C. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, we calculated the weighted-average cost of production (COP) for each model based on the sum of CP Kelco’s materials and fabrication costs for the foreign like product, plus an amount for home market selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, financial expenses, and packing costs. We relied on the COP data submitted by CP Kelco. We compared the weighted-average COP of CP Kelco’s home market sales to home market sales prices of the foreign like product (net of billing adjustments, discounts, any applicable movement expenses, direct and indirect selling expenses, and packing), as required under section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act, whether such sales were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, and whether such sales were made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Apr 08, 2009 Jkt 217001 D. Results of the Cost Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act, where less than 20 percent of CP Kelco’s sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because these below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities. Where 20 percent or more of CP Kelco’s home market sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because such sales were made: (1) within an extended period of time and in ‘‘substantial quantities’’ within the POR, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Tariff Act, and (2) at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act (i.e., the sales were made at prices below the weighted-average per-unit COP for the POR). In this review, we have disregarded such sales from our margin calculation. We used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, if such sales existed, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act. E. Price-to-Price Comparisons We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers. We made adjustments for billing adjustments, early payment discounts, rebates, and factoring charges,2 where appropriate. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. We also reduced foreign inland freight, where appropriate, by the amount of freight revenue paid by the customer to CP Kelco. In accordance with our treatment of freight revenue on U.S. sales of subject merchandise (see ‘‘Export Price’’ section, above), we capped the amount of freight revenue deducted at no greater than the amount of movement expenses in the home market. In addition, when comparing sales of similar merchandise, we made adjustments for differences in cost (i.e., DIFMER), where those differences were attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act and section 351.411 of the Department’s regulations. We also made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and section 351.410 of the Department’s regulations. We made COS adjustments for imputed credit expenses. We also made an adjustment, 2 See PO 00000 EP section, above. Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 16183 where appropriate, for the CEP offset in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act. See ‘‘Level of Trade and CEP Offset’’ section below. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act. F. Constructed Value (CV) In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, we base NV on CV if we are unable to find a contemporaneous comparison market match of identical or similar merchandise for the U.S. sale. Section 773(e) of the Tariff Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication employed in making the subject merchandise, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the cost of materials and fabrication for CP Kelco based on the methodology described in the COP section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by CP Kelco in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. However, for these preliminary results, we did not base NV on CV in any instances. Level of Trade and CEP Offset In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act, to the extent practicable, we base NV on sales made in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the export transaction. The NV LOT is based on the starting price of sales in the home market or, when NV is based on CV, on the LOT of the sales from which SG&A expenses and profit are derived. With respect to CEP transactions in the U.S. market, the CEP LOT is defined as the level of trade of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. For CEP sales, if the NV LOT is more remote E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM 09APN1 dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES 16184 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Notices from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act (the CEP offset provision). See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes From Canada, 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 8; see also Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 17406, 17410 (April 6, 2005) (unchanged in final results of review, 70 FR 58683 (October 7, 2005)). For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the U.S. price after the deduction of expenses incurred in the U.S. and CEP profit under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314–1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We expect that if the claimed LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims the LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. See Porcelain-onSteel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 6. CP Kelco reported it sold CMC to end users and distributors in the home market and to end users and distributors in the United States. CP Kelco identified two channels of distribution for sales in both the home market and the U.S. market: end users (channel 1) and distributors (channel 2). See CP Kelco’s Section A Response at page A–16 to A– 17, and CP Kelco’s Sections B and C Response at pages B–19 to B–20. CP Kelco claims that it does not sell other products at different levels of trade in the home market, including at a level of trade comparable to the CEP level of trade. CP Kelco claims that as a result, it cannot quantify a specific level of trade adjustment within the meaning of section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. Therefore, CP Kelco requests the Department make an adjustment to NV for its CEP sales pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act (the CEP offset). See CP Kelco’s Section A Response at page A–32 to A–33, and CP Kelco’s Sections B and C Response at page B–20. The Department found in the previous review that there was only one LOT in the home market. See Purified VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Apr 08, 2009 Jkt 217001 Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland; Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 45948, 45953 (August 7, 2008) (unchanged in Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 75397 (December 11, 2008)). Therefore, CP Kelco reported only one level of trade in its home market sales listing. See CP Kelco’s Section C Response at page C– 20. As described above, CP Kelco made both direct (EP) sales of subject merchandise to U.S. customers and CEP sales of subject merchandise through its affiliate, CP Kelco U.S., Inc. CP Kelco reported that its EP sales to both end users and distributors were made at the same LOT as sales made to home market end users and distributors. See CP Kelco’s Section A Response at page A– 33. However, CP Kelco reported that its CEP sales were made at a different LOT. Id. See also, CP Kelco’s Sections B and C Response at page B–20. We obtained information from CP Kelco regarding the marketing stages involved in making its reported home market and U.S. sales. CP Kelco described all selling activities performed, and provided a table comparing the selling functions performed among each channel of distribution for both markets. See CP Kelco’s Section A response at pages A– 18 to A–31. We reviewed the nature of the selling functions and the intensity to which all selling functions were performed for each home market channel of distribution and customer category and between CP Kelco’s EP and home market channels of distribution and customer categories. While we found differences in the levels of intensity performed for some of these functions between the home market end user and distributor channels of distribution, such differences are minor and do not establish distinct and separate levels of trade in Finland. Based on our analysis of all of CP Kelco’s home market selling functions, we find all home market sales were made at the same LOT. Further, we find only minor differences between the sole home market LOT and that of CP Kelco’s EP sales. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine CP Kelco’s home market and EP sales were made at the same LOT. We then compared the NV LOT, based on the selling activities associated with the transactions between CP Kelco and its customers in the home market, to the CEP LOT, which is based on the selling activities associated with the transaction between CP Kelco and its affiliated PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 importer, CP Kelco U.S., Inc. Our analysis indicates the selling functions performed for home market customers are either performed at a higher degree of intensity or are greater in number than the selling functions performed for CP Kelco U.S., Inc. For example, in comparing CP Kelco’s selling activities, we find most of the reported selling functions performed in the home market are not a part of CEP transactions (i.e., sales negotiations, credit risk management, collection, sales promotion, direct sales personnel, technical support, guarantees, and discounts). For those selling activities performed for both home market sales and CEP sales (i.e., customer care, logistics, inventory maintenance, packing, and freight/delivery), CP Kelco reported it performed each activity at either the same or at a higher level of intensity in one or both of the home market channels of distribution. For both the packing and the freight/ delivery selling functions, each function is performed at the same level of intensity in one home market channel of distribution, but at a lower level of intensity in the other home market channel of distribution. We note that CEP sales from CP Kelco to CP Kelco U.S., Inc. generally occur at the beginning of the distribution chain, representing essentially a logistical transfer of inventory. In contrast, all sales in the home market occur closer to the end of the distribution chain and involve smaller volumes and more customer interaction which, in turn, require the performance of more selling functions. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage than the CEP LOT. Because we found the home market and U.S. CEP sales were made at different LOTs, we examined whether a LOT adjustment or a CEP offset may be appropriate in this review. As we found only one LOT in the home market, it was not possible to make a LOT adjustment to home market sales, because such an adjustment is dependent on our ability to identify a pattern of consistent price differences between the home market sales on which NV is based and home market sales at the LOT of the CEP sales. See 19 CFR 351.412(d)(1)(ii). Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a LOT adjustment. Because the data available do not form an appropriate basis for making a LOT adjustment, and because the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT, we have made a CEP offset to NV in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act. E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM 09APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Notices dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Currency Conversions CP Kelco reported certain U.S. sales prices and certain U.S. expenses and adjustments in euros. Therefore, we made euro-U.S. dollar currency conversions, where appropriate, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Board, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Tariff Act. Department will issue final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to section 351.212(b) Preliminary Results of Review of the Department’s regulations, the As a result of our review, we Department will calculate an assessment preliminarily find the following rate on all appropriate entries. CP Kelco weighted-average dumping margin has reported entered values for all of its exists for the period July 1, 2007, sales of subject merchandise to the U.S. through June 30, 2008: during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with section 351.212(b)(1) of Weighted Average the Department’s regulations, we will Manufacturer / Exporter Margin calculate importer-specific duty (percentage) assessment rates on the basis of the ratio CP Kelco ....................... 11.94% of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales The Department will disclose to the total entered value of the calculations performed within five days examined sales of that importer. These of the date of publication of this notice rates will be assessed uniformly on all in accordance with section 351.224(b) of entries the respective importers made the Department’s regulations. An during the POR. Where the assessment interested party may request a hearing rate is above de minimis, we will within thirty days of publication. See instruct CBP to assess duties on all section 351.310(c) of the Department’s entries of subject merchandise by that regulations. Any hearing, if requested, importer. The Department will issue will be held 37 days after the date of appropriate assessment instructions publication, or the first business day directly to CBP fifteen days after thereafter, unless the Department alters publication of the final results of the date pursuant to section 351.310(d) review. of the Department’s regulations. The Department clarified its Requests should contain the party’s ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on name, address, and telephone number, May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and the number of participants, and a list of Countervailing Duty Proceedings: the issues to be discussed. At the Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 hearing, each party may make an FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This affirmative presentation only on issues clarification will apply to entries of raised in that party’s case brief and may subject merchandise during the POR make rebuttal presentations only on produced by the respondent for which arguments included in that party’s it did not know its merchandise was rebuttal brief. destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to Comments liquidate un-reviewed entries at the allInterested parties may submit case others rate if there is no rate for the briefs no later than 30 days after the intermediate company(ies) involved in date of publication of these preliminary the transaction. Id. results of review. See 19 CFR Cash Deposit Requirements 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be Furthermore, the following deposit filed no later than 35 days after the date requirements will be effective upon of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR completion of the final results of this 351.309(d). Parties who submit administrative review for all shipments arguments in these proceedings are of CMC from Finland entered, or requested to submit with the argument: withdrawn from warehouse, for 1) a statement of the issue; 2) a brief consumption on or after the publication summary of the argument; and 3) a table date of the final results of this of authorities. Further, parties administrative review, as provided by submitting written comments should section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: 1) the provide the Department with an cash deposit rate for CP Kelco will be additional copy of the public version of the rate established in the final results any such comments on diskette. The of review; 2) if the exporter is not a firm VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Apr 08, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 16185 covered in this review or the less-thanfair-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 3) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the all-others rate of 6.65 percent ad valorem from the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands and Sweden, 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005). These deposit requirements, 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) 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 the antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: April 2, 2009. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E9–8113 Filed 4–8–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration North American Free-Trade Agreement, Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews: Notice of Termination of Panel Review AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Termination of Panel Review of the Final Results of Full Sunset Review made by the International Trade Commission, respecting Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico, Secretariat File No. USA–MEX–2000–1904–10. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the negotiated settlement between the United States and Mexican industries, the panel E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM 09APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 67 (Thursday, April 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16180-16185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8113]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-405-803]


Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland; Notice of 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from Aqualon Company, a division of 
Hercules Inc., (the petitioner) and respondents CP Kelco OY and CP 
Kelco U.S., Inc. (collectively, CP Kelco), the Department of Commerce 
(the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on purified carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from 
Finland. The review covers exports of the subject merchandise to the 
United States produced by CP Kelco. The period of review (POR) is July 
1, 2007, through June 30, 2008.
    We preliminarily find that CP Kelco made sales at less than normal 
value (NV) during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in 
our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties based on 
differences between the export price (EP) or constructed export price 
(CEP) and NV.


EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 2009

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyler Weinhold or Robert James, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1121 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department published the antidumping duty order on CMC from 
Finland on
    July 11, 2005. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Purified 
Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and 
Sweden, 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005). On July 11, 2008, the Department 
published the notice of opportunity to request an administrative review 
of CMC from Finland for the period July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008. 
See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 
39948 (July 11, 2008).
    On July 11, 2008, CP Kelco requested an administrative review for 
July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008. On July 14, 2008, the petitioner 
requested a review of CP Kelco for the same period. On August 26, 2008, 
the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation 
of this antidumping duty administrative review. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 50308 
(August 26, 2008).
    On October 3, 2008, the Department issued its standard antidumping 
questionnaire (the antidumping questionnaire) to CP Kelco. CP Kelco 
submitted its response to section A of the Department's antidumping 
questionnaire on September 30, 2008 (CP Kelco's Section A Response). CP 
Kelco submitted its response to sections B and C of the antidumping 
questionnaire on October 20, 2008 (CP Kelco's Sections B and C 
Response). Because the Department disregarded sales at prices below the 
cost of production in the most recently completed administrative review 
as of the initiation of the instant review, we are conducting a sales-
at-below-cost investigation in this review. See Purified 
Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland; Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 44106 
(August 7, 2007) (unchanged in Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 
Finland, Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 72 FR 70568 (December 12, 2007). Accordingly, CP Kelco 
submitted its response to section D of the antidumping questionnaire on 
October 31, 2008 (CP Kelco's Section D Response).
    On November 10, 2008, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire to CP Kelco regarding its responses to sections A, B, and 
C of the antidumping questionnaire. CP Kelco submitted its response to 
the Department's supplemental questionnaire on December 2, 2008 (CP 
Kelco's Supplemental Sections A, B, and C Response).
    On January 5, 2009, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire to CP Kelco regarding its responses to section D of the 
antidumping questionnaire. CP Kelco submitted its response to the 
Department's supplemental questionnaire on January 22, 2009 (CP Kelco's 
Supplemental Section D Response). On January 27, 2009, CP Kelco 
submitted data and electronic versions of exhibits from CP

[[Page 16181]]

Kelco's Supplemental Section D Response.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is all purified 
carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), sometimes also referred to as purified 
sodium CMC, polyanionic cellulose, or cellulose gum, which is a white 
to off-white, non-toxic, odorless, biodegradable powder, comprising 
sodium CMC that has been refined and purified to a minimum assay of 90 
percent. Purified CMC does not include unpurified or crude CMC, CMC 
Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, and CMC that is cross-linked through 
heat treatment. Purified CMC is CMC that has undergone one or more 
purification operations which, at a minimum, reduce the remaining salt 
and other by-product portion of the product to less than ten percent. 
The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheading 3912.31.00. This 
tariff classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes; 
however, the written description of the scope of the order is 
dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of CMC in the United States were made at 
less than NV, we compared U.S. price to NV, as described in the 
``Export Price,'' ``Constructed Export Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' 
sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), we calculated monthly 
weighted-average NVs and compared these to individual U.S. 
transactions. Because we determined CP Kelco made both EP and CEP sales 
during the POR, we used both EP and CEP as the basis for U.S. price in 
our comparisons. We used the invoice date, as recorded in CP Kelco's 
normal books and records, as the date of sale for CP Kelco's EP, CEP, 
and home market sales. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). For a more detailed 
discussion of these calculations, see Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold, 
to the File, ``Analysis of Data Submitted by CP Kelco Oy and CP Kelco 
U.S. Inc. (collectively, CP Kelco) in the Preliminary Results of the 
2007-2008 Administrative Review of Purified Carboxymethylcellulose 
(CMC) from Finland,'' dated March 27, 2009 (Preliminary Analysis 
Memorandum).

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered 
all products produced by CP Kelco covered by the description in the 
``Scope of the Order'' section, above, and sold in the home market 
during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We relied on five 
characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to home 
market sales of the foreign like product (listed in order of priority): 
1) grade; 2) viscosity; 3) degree of substitution; 4) particle size; 
and 5) solution gel characteristics. See the antidumping questionnaire 
at Appendix 5. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in 
the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the 
next most similar foreign like product on the basis of these product 
characteristics and the reporting instructions listed in the 
antidumping questionnaire. Because there were sales of identical or 
similar merchandise in the home market suitable for comparison to each 
U.S. sale, we did not compare any U.S. sales to constructed value (CV).

Export Price

    Section 772(a) of the Tariff Act defines EP as ``the price at which 
the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the 
date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise 
outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United 
States,'' as adjusted under section 772(c). In accordance with section 
772(a) of the Tariff Act, we used EP for a number of CP Kelco's U.S. 
sales. We preliminarily find that these sales are properly classified 
as EP sales because these sales were made before the date of 
importation and were sales made directly to unaffiliated U.S. 
customers, and because our CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted.
    We based EP on the prices to unaffiliated customers in the United 
States. We made adjustments for price or billing adjustments and 
discounts, where applicable. We also made deductions for movement 
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, 
which included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, 
international freight, marine insurance, and U.S. brokerage and 
handling. Additionally, we made adjustments for direct selling expenses 
(credit expenses) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff 
Act.
    CP Kelco incurred certain expenses as a result of factoring certain 
sales (i.e., selling the accounts receivable associated with those 
sales to an affiliated financial institution in exchange for an 
immediate payment). For factored sales, we made an adjustment to gross 
unit price based upon the difference between the face value of the 
accounts receivables factored and the immediate payment received upon 
the factoring of those receivables (factoring discount).
    We reduced movement expenses, where appropriate, by the amount of 
freight revenue paid by the customer to CP Kelco. In accordance with 
our practice in the recently completed administrative review of 
polyethylene retail carrier bags from the People's Republic of China, 
we capped the amount of freight revenue deducted at no greater than the 
amount of movement expenses in the home market. See Polyethylene Retail 
Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 6857 (February 11, 2009) 
(Bags from the PRC). As the Department explained in Bags from the PRC, 
section 772 (c)(1) of the Tariff Act provides that the Department shall 
increase the price used to establish either export price or constructed 
export price in only the following three instances: (A) when not 
included in such price, the cost of all containers and coverings and 
all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the subject 
merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United 
States; (B) the amount of any import duties imposed by the country of 
exportation which have been rebated, or which have not been collected, 
by reason of the exportation of the subject merchandise to the United 
States; and (C) the amount of any countervailing duty imposed on the 
subject merchandise under subtitle A to offset an export subsidy. In 
addition, section 351.401(c) of the Department's regulations directs 
the Department to use a price in the calculation of U.S. price which is 
net of any price adjustments that are reasonably attributable to the 
subject merchandise. The term ``price adjustments'' is defined under 19 
CFR 351.102(b) as a ``change in the price charged for subject 
merchandise or the foreign like product, such as discounts, rebates, 
and post-sale adjustments, that are reflected in the purchaser's net 
outlay.''
    In past cases, we have declined to treat freight-related revenues 
as addition to U.S. price under section 772(c) of the Tariff Act or 
price adjustments under 19 CFR 351.102(b). Rather, we have incorporated 
these revenues as offsets to movement expenses because they relate to 
the transportation of subject merchandise. See, e.g., Stainless Steel 
Wire Rod from Sweden: Preliminary

[[Page 16182]]

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 51414 
(September 7, 2007) (unchanged in Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 12950 
(March 1, 2008)).
    Further, our offset practice limits the granting of an offset to 
situations where a respondent incurs expenses and realized revenue for 
the same type of activity. See Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 
51414, 51415. According to CP Kelco's responses, freight revenues are 
revenues received from customers for invoice items covering 
transportation expenses, and arise when freight is not included in the 
selling price under the applicable terms of delivery, but when CP Kelco 
arranges and prepays freight for the customer. See CP Kelco's Section B 
Response at B-25 and CP Kelco's Section C response at C-27. Therefore, 
we have limited the amount of the freight revenue used to offset CP 
Kelco's movement expenses to the amount of movement expenses incurred 
on the sale of subject merchandise. See Preliminary Analysis Memorandum 
at page 2.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Tariff Act, CEP is ``the 
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 
sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by 
or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or 
by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser 
not affiliated with the producer or exporter,'' as adjusted under 
sections 772(c) and (d) of the Tariff Act. In accordance with section 
772(b) of the Tariff Act, we used CEP for a number of CP Kelco's U.S. 
sales because CP Kelco sold merchandise to affiliate CP Kelco U.S., 
Inc. in the United States which, in turn, sold subject merchandise to 
unaffiliated U.S. customers. We preliminarily find that these U.S. 
sales are properly classified as CEP sales because they occurred in the 
United States and were made through CP Kelco U.S. Inc. to unaffiliated 
U.S. customers.
    We based CEP on the prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States. We made adjustments for price or billing adjustments, early 
payment discounts, and factoring charges,\1\ where applicable. We also 
made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, which included, where appropriate, 
foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international 
freight, marine insurance, customs duties, U.S. brokerage, U.S. inland 
freight, and U.S. warehousing expenses. We also reduced movement 
expenses, where appropriate, by the amount of freight revenue paid by 
the customer to CP Kelco. In accordance with our treatment of freight 
revenue on U.S. sales of subject merchandise (see ``Export Price'' 
section, above), we capped the amount of freight revenue deducted at no 
greater than the amount of movement expenses in the home market. In 
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Tariff Act, we deducted those 
selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the 
United States, including direct selling expenses (imputed credit 
expenses), inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses. We 
also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) 
of the Tariff Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See EP section, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further-Manufactured U.S. Sales

    During the POR, CP Kelco made certain sales of subject merchandise 
to affiliated companies in the United States. See CP Kelco's Section A 
Response at pages B-46 to B-48, and exhibit A-27. This merchandise was 
subsequently further manufactured by the U.S. affiliates into non-
subject merchandise, which was then sold to unaffiliated U.S. 
customers. See CP Kelco's Section A Response at pages A-46 to A-48. The 
total quantity of this material represented less than 10 percent of CP 
Kelco's total U.S. sales. Id.
    Section 772(e) of the Tariff Act provides that when the value added 
in the United States by an affiliated party is likely to exceed 
substantially the value of the subject merchandise, the Department 
shall use one of the following prices to determine CEP if there is a 
sufficient quantity of sales to provide a reasonable basis of 
comparison and the use of such sales is appropriate: (1) the price of 
identical subject merchandise sold by the exporter or producer to an 
unaffiliated person; or (2) the price of other subject merchandise sold 
by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated person.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.402 (c)(2), we conducted an analysis 
to determine whether the value added to the subject merchandise by the 
affiliated customers after importation in the United States was at 
least 65 percent of the price charged to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser for the merchandise as sold in the United States. See 19 CFR 
351.402(c)(2). Our analysis showed that the value added by the 
affiliated customers was significantly greater than 65 percent. 
Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that the value added in the 
United States by the affiliated customers exceeds substantially the 
value of the subject merchandise. Id. See also CP Kelco's Section A 
Response at pages A-46 to A-48, and exhibit A-27.
    We then considered whether there were sales of identical subject 
merchandise or other subject merchandise sold in sufficient quantities 
by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated person that could 
provide a reasonable basis of comparison. In this case, there were 
sales of identical subject merchandise or other subject merchandise 
sold in sufficient quantities by CP Kelco U.S. to unaffiliated persons 
that could provide a reasonable basis for calculating CEP for CP 
Kelco's sales of further manufactured merchandise. See Preliminary 
Analysis Memorandum at page 1.
    Decisions as to the appropriate methodology for determining CEP for 
sales involving further manufacturing generally must be made on a case-
by-case basis. See, e.g., Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 
51584, 51586 (September 10, 2007) (unchanged in final results, 73 FR 
14220 (March 17, 2008)). In the instant review, we find the quantity of 
sales of merchandise to unaffiliated customers is sufficiently large to 
serve as a reasonable basis for the calculation of CEP. The value added 
to the CMC after importation is very substantial and the further 
manufacturing very complex. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.402(c)(3), and as in the 2006-2007 review of this order, we have 
used the preliminary weighted-average dumping margins calculated on 
sales of other subject merchandise sold to unaffiliated persons to 
determine the dumping margins for further-manufactures sales. See 
Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland; Notice of Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 45948, 45950 
(August 7, 2008) (unchanged in Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 
Finland, Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 
75397 (December 11, 2008)).

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market
    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the

[[Page 16183]]

home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was 
equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales), we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Tariff Act. As 
CP Kelco'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 of the subject merchandise, we determined the home market was 
viable. Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales in the usual 
commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
    In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act, we 
are conducting a sales-below-cost investigation in this review because 
the Department disregarded some of CP Kelco's sales as having been made 
at prices below the cost of production in the previous administrative 
review. See Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Notice of 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 70568 
(December 12, 2007).
C. Calculation of Cost of Production
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, we 
calculated the weighted-average cost of production (COP) for each model 
based on the sum of CP Kelco's materials and fabrication costs for the 
foreign like product, plus an amount for home market selling, general, 
and administrative (SG&A) expenses, financial expenses, and packing 
costs. We relied on the COP data submitted by CP Kelco.
    We compared the weighted-average COP of CP Kelco's home market 
sales to home market sales prices of the foreign like product (net of 
billing adjustments, discounts, any applicable movement expenses, 
direct and indirect selling expenses, and packing), as required under 
section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, in order to determine whether these 
sales had been made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to 
disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, 
in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act, 
whether such sales were made in substantial quantities within an 
extended period of time, and whether such sales were made at prices 
which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time.
D. Results of the Cost Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act, where less than 
20 percent of CP Kelco's sales of a given model were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model 
because these below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities. 
Where 20 percent or more of CP Kelco's home market sales of a given 
model were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost 
sales because such sales were made: (1) within an extended period of 
time and in ``substantial quantities'' within the POR, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Tariff Act, and (2) at prices 
which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period 
of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act 
(i.e., the sales were made at prices below the weighted-average per-
unit COP for the POR). In this review, we have disregarded such sales 
from our margin calculation. We used the remaining sales as the basis 
for determining NV, if such sales existed, in accordance with section 
773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act.
E. Price-to-Price Comparisons
    We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers. We made 
adjustments for billing adjustments, early payment discounts, rebates, 
and factoring charges,\2\ where appropriate. We made deductions, where 
appropriate, for foreign inland freight, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. We also reduced foreign inland freight, 
where appropriate, by the amount of freight revenue paid by the 
customer to CP Kelco. In accordance with our treatment of freight 
revenue on U.S. sales of subject merchandise (see ``Export Price'' 
section, above), we capped the amount of freight revenue deducted at no 
greater than the amount of movement expenses in the home market. In 
addition, when comparing sales of similar merchandise, we made 
adjustments for differences in cost (i.e., DIFMER), where those 
differences were attributable to differences in physical 
characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act and section 351.411 of the 
Department's regulations. We also made adjustments for differences in 
circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and section 351.410 of the 
Department's regulations. We made COS adjustments for imputed credit 
expenses. We also made an adjustment, where appropriate, for the CEP 
offset in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act. See 
``Level of Trade and CEP Offset'' section below. Finally, we deducted 
home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance 
with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See EP section, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Constructed Value (CV)
    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, we base NV 
on CV if we are unable to find a contemporaneous comparison market 
match of identical or similar merchandise for the U.S. sale. Section 
773(e) of the Tariff Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of 
the cost of materials and fabrication employed in making the subject 
merchandise, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We 
calculated the cost of materials and fabrication for CP Kelco based on 
the methodology described in the COP section of this notice. In 
accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, we based SG&A 
expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by CP Kelco in 
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in 
the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. 
However, for these preliminary results, we did not base NV on CV in any 
instances.

Level of Trade and CEP Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act, to the 
extent practicable, we base NV on sales made in the comparison market 
at the same level of trade (LOT) as the export transaction. The NV LOT 
is based on the starting price of sales in the home market or, when NV 
is based on CV, on the LOT of the sales from which SG&A expenses and 
profit are derived.
    With respect to CEP transactions in the U.S. market, the CEP LOT is 
defined as the level of trade of the constructed sale from the exporter 
to the importer. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP 
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. 
See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. For CEP sales, if the NV LOT is more 
remote

[[Page 16184]]

from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining 
whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price 
comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff 
Act (the CEP offset provision). See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes From Canada, 67 FR 8781 
(February 26, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at 
Comment 8; see also Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel 
Products from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 17406, 17410 (April 6, 2005) (unchanged in 
final results of review, 70 FR 58683 (October 7, 2005)). For CEP sales, 
we consider only the selling activities reflected in the U.S. price 
after the deduction of expenses incurred in the U.S. and CEP profit 
under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. 
United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We expect 
that if the claimed LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of 
the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims the LOTs 
are different for different groups of sales, the functions and 
activities of the seller should be dissimilar. See Porcelain-on-Steel 
Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and accompanying Issues and 
Decisions Memorandum at Comment 6.
    CP Kelco reported it sold CMC to end users and distributors in the 
home market and to end users and distributors in the United States. CP 
Kelco identified two channels of distribution for sales in both the 
home market and the U.S. market: end users (channel 1) and distributors 
(channel 2). See CP Kelco's Section A Response at page A-16 to A-17, 
and CP Kelco's Sections B and C Response at pages B-19 to B-20. CP 
Kelco claims that it does not sell other products at different levels 
of trade in the home market, including at a level of trade comparable 
to the CEP level of trade. CP Kelco claims that as a result, it cannot 
quantify a specific level of trade adjustment within the meaning of 
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. Therefore, CP Kelco requests 
the Department make an adjustment to NV for its CEP sales pursuant to 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act (the CEP offset). See CP Kelco's 
Section A Response at page A-32 to A-33, and CP Kelco's Sections B and 
C Response at page B-20.
    The Department found in the previous review that there was only one 
LOT in the home market. See Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From 
Finland; Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 45948, 45953 (August 7, 2008) (unchanged 
in Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 75397 (December 11, 
2008)). Therefore, CP Kelco reported only one level of trade in its 
home market sales listing. See CP Kelco's Section C Response at page C-
20.
    As described above, CP Kelco made both direct (EP) sales of subject 
merchandise to U.S. customers and CEP sales of subject merchandise 
through its affiliate, CP Kelco U.S., Inc. CP Kelco reported that its 
EP sales to both end users and distributors were made at the same LOT 
as sales made to home market end users and distributors. See CP Kelco's 
Section A Response at page A-33. However, CP Kelco reported that its 
CEP sales were made at a different LOT. Id. See also, CP Kelco's 
Sections B and C Response at page B-20.
    We obtained information from CP Kelco regarding the marketing 
stages involved in making its reported home market and U.S. sales. CP 
Kelco described all selling activities performed, and provided a table 
comparing the selling functions performed among each channel of 
distribution for both markets. See CP Kelco's Section A response at 
pages A-18 to A-31. We reviewed the nature of the selling functions and 
the intensity to which all selling functions were performed for each 
home market channel of distribution and customer category and between 
CP Kelco's EP and home market channels of distribution and customer 
categories.
    While we found differences in the levels of intensity performed for 
some of these functions between the home market end user and 
distributor channels of distribution, such differences are minor and do 
not establish distinct and separate levels of trade in Finland. Based 
on our analysis of all of CP Kelco's home market selling functions, we 
find all home market sales were made at the same LOT. Further, we find 
only minor differences between the sole home market LOT and that of CP 
Kelco's EP sales. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine CP Kelco's 
home market and EP sales were made at the same LOT.
    We then compared the NV LOT, based on the selling activities 
associated with the transactions between CP Kelco and its customers in 
the home market, to the CEP LOT, which is based on the selling 
activities associated with the transaction between CP Kelco and its 
affiliated importer, CP Kelco U.S., Inc. Our analysis indicates the 
selling functions performed for home market customers are either 
performed at a higher degree of intensity or are greater in number than 
the selling functions performed for CP Kelco U.S., Inc. For example, in 
comparing CP Kelco's selling activities, we find most of the reported 
selling functions performed in the home market are not a part of CEP 
transactions (i.e., sales negotiations, credit risk management, 
collection, sales promotion, direct sales personnel, technical support, 
guarantees, and discounts). For those selling activities performed for 
both home market sales and CEP sales (i.e., customer care, logistics, 
inventory maintenance, packing, and freight/delivery), CP Kelco 
reported it performed each activity at either the same or at a higher 
level of intensity in one or both of the home market channels of 
distribution. For both the packing and the freight/delivery selling 
functions, each function is performed at the same level of intensity in 
one home market channel of distribution, but at a lower level of 
intensity in the other home market channel of distribution.
    We note that CEP sales from CP Kelco to CP Kelco U.S., Inc. 
generally occur at the beginning of the distribution chain, 
representing essentially a logistical transfer of inventory. In 
contrast, all sales in the home market occur closer to the end of the 
distribution chain and involve smaller volumes and more customer 
interaction which, in turn, require the performance of more selling 
functions. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the NV LOT is at a 
more advanced stage than the CEP LOT.
    Because we found the home market and U.S. CEP sales were made at 
different LOTs, we examined whether a LOT adjustment or a CEP offset 
may be appropriate in this review. As we found only one LOT in the home 
market, it was not possible to make a LOT adjustment to home market 
sales, because such an adjustment is dependent on our ability to 
identify a pattern of consistent price differences between the home 
market sales on which NV is based and home market sales at the LOT of 
the CEP sales. See 19 CFR 351.412(d)(1)(ii). Furthermore, we have no 
other information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a 
LOT adjustment. Because the data available do not form an appropriate 
basis for making a LOT adjustment, and because the NV LOT is at a more 
advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT, we have made a CEP 
offset to NV in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act.

[[Page 16185]]

Currency Conversions

    CP Kelco reported certain U.S. sales prices and certain U.S. 
expenses and adjustments in euros. Therefore, we made euro-U.S. dollar 
currency conversions, where appropriate, based on the exchange rates in 
effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal 
Reserve Board, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Tariff Act.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily find the following 
weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2007, 
through June 30, 2008:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted Average
               Manufacturer / Exporter                      Margin
                                                         (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CP Kelco............................................              11.94%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 
section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations. An interested party 
may request a hearing within thirty days of publication. See section 
351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first 
business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant 
to section 351.310(d) of the Department's regulations. Requests should 
contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of 
participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, 
each party may make an affirmative presentation only on issues raised 
in that party's case brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on 
arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief.

Comments

    Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days 
after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. 
See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the 
case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of 
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit 
arguments in these proceedings 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. Further, parties submitting 
written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy 
of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department 
will issue final results of this administrative review, including the 
results of our analysis of the issues in any such written comments or 
at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary 
results.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this 
administrative review, pursuant to section 351.212(b) of the 
Department's regulations, the Department will calculate an assessment 
rate on all appropriate entries. CP Kelco has reported entered values 
for all of its sales of subject merchandise to the U.S. during the POR. 
Therefore, in accordance with section 351.212(b)(1) of the Department's 
regulations, we will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates 
on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties 
calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the 
examined sales of that importer. These rates will be assessed uniformly 
on all entries the respective importers made during the POR. Where the 
assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess 
duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The 
Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to 
CBP fifteen days after publication of the final results of review.
    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). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know its 
merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we 
will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries at the all-others 
rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in 
the transaction. Id.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of CMC from Finland entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results 
of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the 
Tariff Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for CP Kelco will be the rate 
established in the final results of review; 2) if the exporter is not a 
firm covered in this review or the 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 3) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is 
a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the 
Department, the cash deposit rate will be the all-others rate of 6.65 
percent ad valorem from the LTFV investigation. See Notice of 
Antidumping Duty Orders: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 
Mexico, the Netherlands and Sweden, 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005). These 
deposit requirements, 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) 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 the antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

    Dated: April 2, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-8113 Filed 4-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S