Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Mexico: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 16359-16363 [E9-8233]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Notices will use the data in several ways. First, the capital workweek data will be used as an indicator of capital use in the estimation of monthly output (industrial production). Second, the workweek data will also be used to improve the projections of labor productivity that are used to align industrial production (IP) with comprehensive benchmark information in the Economic Census, Manufacturing and Annual Survey of Manufactures. Third, the utilization rate data will assist in the assessment of recent changes in IP, as most of the high-frequency movement in utilization rates reflect production changes rather than capacity changes. II. Method of Collection The Census Bureau will use the mail out/mail back survey forms to collect the data. An electronic version of the form for reporting via the Internet will also be offered. Companies will be asked to respond within 20 days of the initial mailing. This due date will be imprinted at the top of the form. Letters encouraging participation will be mailed to companies that have not responded by the designated time. Subsequent to the letter, a telephone follow-up will be conducted. III. Data OMB Control Number: 0607–0175. Form Number: MQ–C2. Type of Review: Regular submission. Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. Estimated Number of Respondents: 7,500. Estimated Time per Response: 1.75 hours. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 52,500. Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1,594,425. Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. Legal Authority: Title 13 United States Code, Section 182. IV. Request for Comments 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 has 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 the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 Apr 09, 2009 Jkt 217001 included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: April 7, 2009. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E9–8182 Filed 4–9–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–07–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A–201–834) Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Mexico: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from Quimica Amtex S.A. de C.V. (Amtex), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on purified carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from Mexico. The review covers exports of the subject merchandise to the United States produced and exported by Amtex; the period of review (POR) is July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008. We preliminarily find that Amtex 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. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the arguments: (1) a statement of the issues, (2) a brief summary of the arguments (no longer than five pages, including footnotes) and (3) a table of authorities. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10, 2009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner 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) 482–6312 or (202) 482– 0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 16359 Background The Department published the antidumping duty order on CMC from Mexico 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 Mexico for the period of 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 22, 2008, respondent Amtex requested an administrative review. 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 August 26, 2008, the Department issued its standard antidumping duty questionnaire to Amtex. Amtex submitted its response to section A of the Department’s questionnaire on October 14, 2008 (Amtex Section A Response). Amtex submitted its response to sections B and C of the Department’s questionnaire on November 6, 2008 (Amtex Sections B and C Response). On March 13, 2009, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for sections A, B, and C, to which Amtex responded on March 20, 2009 (Amtex Supplemental Response). Period of Review The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008. 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 E:\FR\FM\10APN1.SGM 10APN1 16360 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Notices 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. Date of Sale The Department’s regulations state that it will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter’s or producer’s records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). If the Department is satisfied that ‘‘a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale,’’ the Department may choose a different date. Id. Amtex has reported the definitive invoice (as differentiated from pro forma invoice) as the invoice date. See Amtex Section A Response at A22. With regard to the invoice date, Amtex bills some of its sales via ‘‘delayed invoices’’ in both the home and U.S. markets. See Amtex Section A Response at A22. Delivery is made to the customer and a pro forma invoice is issued, but the subject merchandise remains in storage and continues to be the property of Amtex until withdrawn for consumption by the customer (usually at the end of a regular, monthly billing cycle), at which time a definitive invoice is issued. Id. In Amtex’s normal books and records, it is this definitive invoice date, not the pro forma invoice date, that is recorded as the date of sale. Id. Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that the definitive invoice date is the date of sale provided it is issued on or before the shipment date; and that the shipment date is the date of sale where the invoice is issued after the shipment date. See Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Carboxymethylcellulose from Mexico dated April 2, 2009 (Analysis Memorandum), for further discussion of date of sale. A public version of this memorandum is on file in the Department’s Central Records Unit (CRU) located in Room 1117 of the main Department of Commerce Building, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 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. VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 Apr 09, 2009 Jkt 217001 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 Amtex 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. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered all products produced by Amtex 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 comparison 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. 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 Department’s August 26, 2008, questionnaire. Because there were contemporaneous sales of identical or similar merchandise in the home market suitable for comparison to all U.S. sales, we did not compare any U.S. sales to constructed value (CV). See the CV section below. Export Price (EP) 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) of the Tariff Act. In accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act, we used EP for a number of Amtex’s U.S. sales because these sales were made before the date of importation and were sales directly to unaffiliated customers in the United States, and because CEP methodology was not otherwise indicated. We based EP on the packed, delivered duty paid, cost and freight (C&F) or free on board (FOB) prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States. Amtex reported no price or billing adjustments, and no discounts. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, which included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight from the mill to the U.S. border, inland freight from the border to the customer or warehouse, and U.S. brokerage and handling. We made adjustment for direct expenses (credit expenses) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act. Constructed Export Price (CEP) 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 Amtex’s U.S. sales because Amtex sold merchandise to its affiliate in the United States, Amtex Chemicals LLC (Amtex Chemicals or ACUS), which, in turn, sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. customers. See, e.g., Amtex Section A Response at A19–A20. We preliminarily find these U.S. sales are properly classified as CEP sales because they occurred in the United States and were made through Amtex’s U.S. affiliate, Amtex Chemicals, to unaffiliated U.S. customers. We based CEP on the packed, delivered duty paid or FOB warehouse prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Amtex reported no price or billing adjustments, and no discounts or rebates. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, which included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight to the border, foreign brokerage and handling, customs duties, U.S. brokerage, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. warehousing expenses. 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 (credit costs), inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses. We made no adjustment for CEP profit for the reasons set forth in the Analysis Memorandum. See Analysis Memorandum at 11. Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Market In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the E:\FR\FM\10APN1.SGM 10APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Notices home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 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) of the Tariff Act. Because Amtex’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. See section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. Therefore, we based NV on home market sales in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. B. Price-to-Price Comparisons We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers. Amtex reported no billing adjustments, discounts or rebates in the home market. We made deductions for movement expenses including, where appropriate, foreign inland freight and insurance, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. In addition, when comparing sales of similar merchandise, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise (i.e., DIFMER) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 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 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments for imputed credit expenses. 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. C. 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 Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication employed in making the subject merchandise, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, financial expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We found contemporaneous market matches for all the U.S. sales. Therefore, for these preliminary results, it was not necessary to base NV on CV. For a more detailed explanation of our CV analysis, which relies upon business proprietary information, please see Analysis Memorandum at 10–13. VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 Apr 09, 2009 Jkt 217001 Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) 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 the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. See section 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(ii). 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 level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level 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., 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), results unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot–Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil, 70 FR 58683 (October 7, 2005); see also 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. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314–15 (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 that the LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. See Porcelain–on-Steel PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 16361 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. Amtex reported it had sold CMC to end–users and distributors in the home market and to end–users and distributors in the United States. For the home market, Amtex identified two channels of distribution: end users (channel 1) and distributors (channel 2). See Amtex’s Section A Response at A15. Amtex claimed a single level of trade in the home market, stating that it performs essentially the same selling functions to either category of customer. We obtained information from Amtex regarding the marketing stages involved in making its reported home market and U.S. sales. Amtex provided a table listing all selling activities it performs, and comparing the levels of trade among each channel of distribution in each market. See Amtex’s Section A Response at Exhibit A–8. We reviewed Amtex’s claims concerning the intensity to which all selling functions were performed for each home market channel of distribution and customer category. For virtually all selling functions, the selling activities of Amtex were identical in both channels, including sales forecasting, personnel training, sales promotion, direct sales personnel, technical assistance, warranty service, after–sales service and arranging delivery. Id. Amtex described the level of activity as independent of channel of distribution. See Amtex’s Section A Response at A16. While we find some differences in the selling functions performed between the home market end–user and distributor channels of distribution, such differences are minor in that they are not the principal selling functions but rather specific to a few customers and rarely performed. See Amtex’s Section A Response at Exhibit A–8. Based on our analysis of all of Amtex’s home market selling functions, we agree with Amtex’s characterization of all its home market sales as being made at the same level of trade, the NV LOT. In the U.S. market, Amtex reported a single level of trade for both EP and CEP sales through two channels of distribution (i.e., end–users and distributors). See Amtex Sections B and C Response at C21. We examined the record with respect to Amtex’s EP sales and find that for all EP sales, Amtex performed such selling functions as sales forecasting, sales promotion, direct sales personnel, technical assistance, warranties, after–sales services and arranging delivery. See Amtex’s Section A Response at Exhibit A–8. In terms of E:\FR\FM\10APN1.SGM 10APN1 16362 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Notices the number and intensity of selling functions performed on EP sales, these were indistinguishable between sales from Amtex to end users and to distributors. Id. Accordingly, we agree with Amtex and preliminarily determine that all EP sales were made at the same LOT. We compared Amtex’s EP level of trade to the single NV level of trade found in the home market. While we find differences in the levels of intensity performed for some of these functions between the home market NV level of trade and the EP level of trade, such differences are minor (specific to a few customers and rarely performed) and do not establish distinct levels of trade within the home market. Based on our analysis of all of Amtex’s home market and EP selling functions, we find these sales were made at the same level of trade. For CEP sales, however, we find that the CEP LOT is more advanced than the NV LOT. In the Selling Functions Chart, Amtex claims that the number and intensity of selling functions performed by Amtex in making its sales to Amtex Chemicals are lower than the number and intensity of selling functions Amtex performed for its EP sales, and further claims that CEP sales are at a less advanced stage than home market sales. See Amtex’s Section A Response at A17 and Exhibit A–8. Amtex’s Section C Response, however, indicates that Amtex’s CEP sales are at a more advanced marketing stage than are its home market sales. See Amtex Sections B and C Response at C37 and Exhibit B12.1. Amtex reports that most of the principal selling functions in both markets are carried out by a single employee in the Mexico office. Based on the allocation of that employee’s time between CEP sales and other sales, it is evident that the intensity of activity for the principal selling functions is greater for CEP sales than other sales. Id.; see also Exhibit A–1. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the CEP LOT (that is, sales from Amtex to its U.S. affiliate) involves a much more intense level of activity than the NV LOT. See Analysis Memorandum at 4– 7; see also Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Mexico: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 44095, 44098 (August 7, 2007), unchanged in final results, 72 FR 70300 (December 11, 2007). 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 VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:39 Apr 09, 2009 Jkt 217001 was not possible to make a LOT adjustment to home market sales prices, 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 CEP LOT. See 19 CFR 351.412(d)(1)(ii). Furthermore, because the CEP LOT involves a much more intense level of activity than the NV LOT, it is not possible to make a CEP offset to NV in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act. 351.309(d)(1). 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 must 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 Currency Conversions of these preliminary results. Amtex reported certain home market The Department shall determine, and and U.S. sales prices and adjustments in CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on both U.S. dollars and Mexican pesos. all appropriate entries. Upon Therefore, we made peso–U.S. dollar completion of this administrative currency conversions, where review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), appropriate, based on the exchange rates the Department will calculate an in effect on the date of the sale, as assessment rate on all appropriate certified by the Federal Reserve Board, entries. Amtex has reported entered in accordance with section 773A(a) of values for all of its sales of subject the Tariff Act. merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with Preliminary Results of Review 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate As a result of our review, we importer–specific duty assessment rates preliminarily find the following on the basis of the ratio of the total weighted–average dumping margin amount of antidumping duties exists for the period July 1, 2007 calculated for the examined sales to the through June 30, 2008: total entered value of the examined sales of that importer. These rates will Weighted–Average be assessed uniformly on all entries the Producer/Exporter Margin respective importers made during the (Percentage) POR if these preliminary results are Quimica Amtex, S.A. de adopted in the final results of review. C.V. ........................... 3.95 Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess The Department will disclose duties on all entries of subject calculations performed within five days merchandise by that importer. In of the date of publication of this notice accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a), the in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Department intends to issue appropriate An interested party may request a assessment instructions directly to CBP hearing within thirty days of on or after 41 days following the publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). publication of the final results of Requests should contain the party’s review. name, address, and telephone number, The Department clarified its the number of participants, and a list of ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on the issues to be discussed. At the May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and hearing, each party may make an Countervailing Duty Proceedings: affirmative presentation only on issues Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 raised in that party’s case brief, and may FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This make rebuttal presentations only on clarification will apply to entries of arguments included in that party’s subject merchandise during the POR rebuttal brief. Any hearing, if requested, produced by the company included in will be held 37 days after the date of these preliminary results that the publication, or the first business day company did not know were destined thereafter, unless the Department alters for the United States. In such instances the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). we will instruct CBP to liquidate Interested parties may submit case briefs unreviewed entries at the ‘‘all others’’ no later than 30 days after the date of rate if there is no rate for the publication of these preliminary results intermediate company or companies of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). involved in the transaction. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised Cash Deposit Requirements in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of Furthermore, the following cash publication of this notice. See 19 CFR deposit requirements will be effective PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10APN1.SGM 10APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Notices for all shipments of CMC from Mexico 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 Amtex will be the rate established in the final results of review, unless that rate is less than 0.50 percent (de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; 2) if the exporter is not a firm 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 12.61 percent 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). This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.221. Dated: April 2, 2009. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E9–8233 Filed 4–9–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648–XO41 Magnuson–Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:54 Apr 09, 2009 Jkt 217001 ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Northeast Region, NMFS (Assistant Regional Administrator), has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This EFP would allow two commercial fishing vessels to temporarily retain undersize fish and fish in excess of possession limits for the purpose of data collection in support of research conducted by the University of Rhode Island (URI). The Assistant Regional Administrator has made a preliminary determination that the activities authorized under this EFP would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP). However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue an EFP. Therefore, NMFS announces that the Assistant Regional Administrator proposes to recommend that an EFP be issued. Regulations under the Magnuson– Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 27, 2009. ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments by any of the following methods: • Email: DA9–087@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line ‘‘Comments on URI TED EFP.’’ • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, NE Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope ‘‘Comments on URI TED EFP.’’ • Fax: (978) 281–9135. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Silva, Cooperative Research Liaison, 978–281–9326. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Southern New England Collaborative Research Initiative, URI was selected by the Commercial Fisheries Research Foundation to conduct a study titled, ‘‘Evaluation of a Modified Turtle Excluder Device (TED) Design in the Southern New England and Mid– Atlantic Summer Trawl Fisheries.’’ The primary objective of this experiment is to evaluate the catch performance of a summer flounder trawl fitted with a TED. This objective would be accomplished through comparative tows PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 16363 between two summer flounder trawls, one of which has the experimental TED. URI proposes to employ two commercial vessels that operate in the summer flounder fishery to conduct this research. Investigators propose to conduct approximately 80, 90-minute tows (40 paired tows) in the New England and Mid–Atlantic regions over the course of 22 sea days in the summer of 2009, starting in early June. Investigators would collect data on estimated total catch weight, and weight and length measurements on summer flounder and other bycatch species. All legal catch would be sold. URI submitted a complete EFP application on March 26, 2009, requesting exemption from minimum fish size and possession limit regulations for the purpose of data collection prior to discarding undersize fish and fish above the vessel’s possession limit. Aside from these exemptions, all other elements of these fishing trips would comply with fishing regulations. The applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited. If the research project is terminated for any reason prior to completion, any unused funds collected from catch sold to pay for research expenses may be refunded to NOAA. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Dated: April 3, 2009. Kristen C. Koch, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E9–8236 Filed 4–9–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Application No. 97–9A003] Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION: Notice of Issuance (# 97–9A003) of an Amended Export Trade Certificate of Review Issued to the Association for the Administration of Rice Quotas, Inc. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce issued an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to the E:\FR\FM\10APN1.SGM 10APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 68 (Friday, April 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16359-16363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8233]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-201-834)


Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Mexico: Notice of 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from Quimica Amtex S.A. de C.V. 
(Amtex), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on purified 
carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from Mexico. The review covers exports of 
the subject merchandise to the United States produced and exported by 
Amtex; the period of review (POR) is July 1, 2007, through June 30, 
2008.
    We preliminarily find that Amtex 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.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with the arguments: (1) a statement of the issues, (2) a 
brief summary of the arguments (no longer than five pages, including 
footnotes) and (3) a table of authorities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner 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-
6312 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department published the antidumping duty order on CMC from 
Mexico 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 Mexico for the period of 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 22, 2008, 
respondent Amtex requested an administrative review. 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 August 26, 2008, the Department issued its standard antidumping 
duty questionnaire to Amtex. Amtex submitted its response to section A 
of the Department's questionnaire on October 14, 2008 (Amtex Section A 
Response). Amtex submitted its response to sections B and C of the 
Department's questionnaire on November 6, 2008 (Amtex Sections B and C 
Response).
    On March 13, 2009, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire for sections A, B, and C, to which Amtex responded on 
March 20, 2009 (Amtex Supplemental Response).

Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008.

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

[[Page 16360]]

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.

Date of Sale

    The Department's regulations state that it will normally use the 
date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records 
kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale. See 19 
CFR 351.401(i). If the Department is satisfied that ``a different date 
better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes 
the material terms of sale,'' the Department may choose a different 
date. Id. Amtex has reported the definitive invoice (as differentiated 
from pro forma invoice) as the invoice date. See Amtex Section A 
Response at A22.
    With regard to the invoice date, Amtex bills some of its sales via 
``delayed invoices'' in both the home and U.S. markets. See Amtex 
Section A Response at A22. Delivery is made to the customer and a pro 
forma invoice is issued, but the subject merchandise remains in storage 
and continues to be the property of Amtex until withdrawn for 
consumption by the customer (usually at the end of a regular, monthly 
billing cycle), at which time a definitive invoice is issued. Id. In 
Amtex's normal books and records, it is this definitive invoice date, 
not the pro forma invoice date, that is recorded as the date of sale. 
Id. Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that the 
definitive invoice date is the date of sale provided it is issued on or 
before the shipment date; and that the shipment date is the date of 
sale where the invoice is issued after the shipment date. See Analysis 
Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review of 
the Antidumping Duty Order on Carboxymethylcellulose from Mexico dated 
April 2, 2009 (Analysis Memorandum), for further discussion of date of 
sale. A public version of this memorandum is on file in the 
Department's Central Records Unit (CRU) located in Room 1117 of the 
main Department of Commerce Building, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

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 Amtex 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.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered 
all products produced by Amtex 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 
comparison 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. 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 Department's August 26, 2008, questionnaire. 
Because there were contemporaneous sales of identical or similar 
merchandise in the home market suitable for comparison to all U.S. 
sales, we did not compare any U.S. sales to constructed value (CV). See 
the CV section below.

Export Price (EP)

    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) of the Tariff Act. In 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act, we used EP for a 
number of Amtex's U.S. sales because these sales were made before the 
date of importation and were sales directly to unaffiliated customers 
in the United States, and because CEP methodology was not otherwise 
indicated.
    We based EP on the packed, delivered duty paid, cost and freight 
(C&F) or free on board (FOB) prices to unaffiliated customers in the 
United States. Amtex reported no price or billing adjustments, and no 
discounts. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, which included, where 
appropriate, foreign inland freight from the mill to the U.S. border, 
inland freight from the border to the customer or warehouse, and U.S. 
brokerage and handling. We made adjustment for direct expenses (credit 
expenses) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act.

Constructed Export Price (CEP)

    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 Amtex's U.S. 
sales because Amtex sold merchandise to its affiliate in the United 
States, Amtex Chemicals LLC (Amtex Chemicals or ACUS), which, in turn, 
sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. customers. See, e.g., 
Amtex Section A Response at A19-A20. We preliminarily find these U.S. 
sales are properly classified as CEP sales because they occurred in the 
United States and were made through Amtex's U.S. affiliate, Amtex 
Chemicals, to unaffiliated U.S. customers.
    We based CEP on the packed, delivered duty paid or FOB warehouse 
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Amtex reported 
no price or billing adjustments, and no discounts or rebates. We made 
deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, which included, where appropriate, 
foreign inland freight to the border, foreign brokerage and handling, 
customs duties, U.S. brokerage, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. 
warehousing expenses. 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 (credit costs), inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling 
expenses. We made no adjustment for CEP profit for the reasons set 
forth in the Analysis Memorandum. See Analysis Memorandum at 11.

Normal Value

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

[[Page 16361]]

home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 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) of the Tariff Act. Because Amtex'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. See 
section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. Therefore, we based NV on home 
market sales in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary 
course of trade.
B. Price-to-Price Comparisons
    We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers. Amtex 
reported no billing adjustments, discounts or rebates in the home 
market. We made deductions for movement expenses including, where 
appropriate, foreign inland freight and insurance, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. In addition, when comparing sales of 
similar merchandise, we made adjustments for differences in cost 
attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the 
merchandise (i.e., DIFMER) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the 
Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 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 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS 
adjustments for imputed credit expenses. 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.
C. 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 Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the 
cost of materials and fabrication employed in making the subject 
merchandise, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, 
financial expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We found 
contemporaneous market matches for all the U.S. sales. Therefore, for 
these preliminary results, it was not necessary to base NV on CV. For a 
more detailed explanation of our CV analysis, which relies upon 
business proprietary information, please see Analysis Memorandum at 10-
13.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) 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 the constructed 
sale from the exporter to the importer. See section 19 CFR 
351.412(c)(1)(ii).
    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 level is more 
remote from the factory than the CEP level 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., 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), results unchanged in Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil, 70 FR 58683 
(October 7, 2005); see also 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. 
For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the 
price after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section 
772(d) of the Tariff Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 
243 F.3d 1301, 1314-15 (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 that 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.
    Amtex reported it had sold CMC to end-users and distributors in the 
home market and to end-users and distributors in the United States. For 
the home market, Amtex identified two channels of distribution: end 
users (channel 1) and distributors (channel 2). See Amtex's Section A 
Response at A15. Amtex claimed a single level of trade in the home 
market, stating that it performs essentially the same selling functions 
to either category of customer.
    We obtained information from Amtex regarding the marketing stages 
involved in making its reported home market and U.S. sales. Amtex 
provided a table listing all selling activities it performs, and 
comparing the levels of trade among each channel of distribution in 
each market. See Amtex's Section A Response at Exhibit A-8. We reviewed 
Amtex's claims concerning the intensity to which all selling functions 
were performed for each home market channel of distribution and 
customer category. For virtually all selling functions, the selling 
activities of Amtex were identical in both channels, including sales 
forecasting, personnel training, sales promotion, direct sales 
personnel, technical assistance, warranty service, after-sales service 
and arranging delivery. Id. Amtex described the level of activity as 
independent of channel of distribution. See Amtex's Section A Response 
at A16.
    While we find some differences in the selling functions performed 
between the home market end-user and distributor channels of 
distribution, such differences are minor in that they are not the 
principal selling functions but rather specific to a few customers and 
rarely performed. See Amtex's Section A Response at Exhibit A-8. Based 
on our analysis of all of Amtex's home market selling functions, we 
agree with Amtex's characterization of all its home market sales as 
being made at the same level of trade, the NV LOT.
    In the U.S. market, Amtex reported a single level of trade for both 
EP and CEP sales through two channels of distribution (i.e., end-users 
and distributors). See Amtex Sections B and C Response at C21. We 
examined the record with respect to Amtex's EP sales and find that for 
all EP sales, Amtex performed such selling functions as sales 
forecasting, sales promotion, direct sales personnel, technical 
assistance, warranties, after-sales services and arranging delivery. 
See Amtex's Section A Response at Exhibit A-8. In terms of

[[Page 16362]]

the number and intensity of selling functions performed on EP sales, 
these were indistinguishable between sales from Amtex to end users and 
to distributors. Id. Accordingly, we agree with Amtex and preliminarily 
determine that all EP sales were made at the same LOT.
    We compared Amtex's EP level of trade to the single NV level of 
trade found in the home market. While we find differences in the levels 
of intensity performed for some of these functions between the home 
market NV level of trade and the EP level of trade, such differences 
are minor (specific to a few customers and rarely performed) and do not 
establish distinct levels of trade within the home market. Based on our 
analysis of all of Amtex's home market and EP selling functions, we 
find these sales were made at the same level of trade.
    For CEP sales, however, we find that the CEP LOT is more advanced 
than the NV LOT. In the Selling Functions Chart, Amtex claims that the 
number and intensity of selling functions performed by Amtex in making 
its sales to Amtex Chemicals are lower than the number and intensity of 
selling functions Amtex performed for its EP sales, and further claims 
that CEP sales are at a less advanced stage than home market sales. See 
Amtex's Section A Response at A17 and Exhibit A-8. Amtex's Section C 
Response, however, indicates that Amtex's CEP sales are at a more 
advanced marketing stage than are its home market sales. See Amtex 
Sections B and C Response at C37 and Exhibit B12.1. Amtex reports that 
most of the principal selling functions in both markets are carried out 
by a single employee in the Mexico office. Based on the allocation of 
that employee's time between CEP sales and other sales, it is evident 
that the intensity of activity for the principal selling functions is 
greater for CEP sales than other sales. Id.; see also Exhibit A-1. 
Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the CEP LOT (that is, 
sales from Amtex to its U.S. affiliate) involves a much more intense 
level of activity than the NV LOT. See Analysis Memorandum at 4-7; see 
also Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Mexico: Notice of Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 44095, 44098 
(August 7, 2007), unchanged in final results, 72 FR 70300 (December 11, 
2007).
    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 prices, 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 CEP LOT. 
See 19 CFR 351.412(d)(1)(ii). Furthermore, because the CEP LOT involves 
a much more intense level of activity than the NV LOT, it is not 
possible to make a CEP offset to NV in accordance with section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act.

Currency Conversions

    Amtex reported certain home market and U.S. sales prices and 
adjustments in both U.S. dollars and Mexican pesos. Therefore, we made 
peso-U.S. dollar currency conversions, where appropriate, based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the date of the sale, 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
                  Producer/Exporter                         Margin
                                                         (Percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quimica Amtex, S.A. de C.V..........................                3.95
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty 
days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 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. 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 19 CFR 351.310(d). 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)(1)(ii). 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)(1). 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 must 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.
    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this 
administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department 
will calculate an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. Amtex has 
reported entered values for all of its sales of subject merchandise to 
the United States during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), 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 
if these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of 
review. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct 
CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that 
importer. In accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends to 
issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP on or after 
41 days following the 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 company included in these preliminary results that 
the company did not know were 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 or 
companies involved in the transaction.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be 
effective

[[Page 16363]]

for all shipments of CMC from Mexico 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 Amtex will be 
the rate established in the final results of review, unless that rate 
is less than 0.50 percent (de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(1)), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; 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 12.61 percent 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).
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.221.

    Dated: April 2, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-8233 Filed 4-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S