Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from Mexico: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 11517-11522 [2010-5369]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 47 (Thursday, March 11, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11517-11522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5369]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-837]


Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from Mexico: Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY:  The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) 
preliminarily determines that certain magnesia carbon bricks (bricks) 
from Mexico are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States 
at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margins of 
sales at LTFV are listed in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section 
of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this 
preliminary determination. Pursuant to a request from the respondent, 
we are postponing for 60 days the final determination and extending 
provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six 
months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination not later 
than 135 days after publication of the preliminary determination.

DATES: Effective Date: March 11, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger or Terre Keaton 
Stefanova, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-4136 and (202) 482-1280, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 18, 2009, the Department initiated the antidumping duty 
investigation of BRICKS from Mexico. See Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks 
from the People's Republic of China and Mexico: Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 74 FR 42852 (August 25, 2009) 
(Initiation Notice). The petitioner in this investigation is Resco 
Products Inc.

[[Page 11518]]

    The Department set aside a period of time for parties to raise 
issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit 
comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the Initiation 
Notice. See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 42853. See also Antidumping 
Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). For 
further details, see the ``Scope Comments'' section of this notice, 
below. The Department also set aside a time for parties to comment on 
product characteristics for use in the antidumping duty questionnaire. 
During September 2009, we received product characteristic comments from 
the petitioner and RHI-Refmex S.A. de C.V. (Refmex), a Mexican producer 
and exporter of the subject merchandise. For an explanation of the 
product-comparison criteria used in this investigation, see the 
``Product Comparisons'' section of this notice, below.
    On September 29, 2009, the International Trade Commission (ITC) 
published its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a 
reasonable indication that imports of bricks from Mexico are materially 
injuring the U.S. industry, and the ITC notified the Department of its 
finding. See Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks form China and Mexico, 74 
FR 49889 (September 29, 2009); see also ``Investigation No. 701-TA-468 
and 731-TA-1166-67 (Preliminary),'' USITC Publication 4100 (September 
2009).
    On September 29, 2009, we selected Refmex as the sole mandatory 
respondent in this investigation. See Memorandum entitled: 
``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from 
Mexico - Selection of Respondents for Individual Review,'' dated 
September 29, 2009. We subsequently issued the antidumping 
questionnaire to Refmex on September 30, 2009. Refmex submitted 
responses to sections A (i.e., the section covering general information 
about the company), B (i.e., the section covering comparison market 
sales) and C (i.e., the section covering U.S. sales) of the antidumping 
duty questionnaire on November 23, 2009. We issued supplemental section 
A, B, and C questionnaires, to which Refmex responded during January 
and February 2010.
    On December 8, 2009, the petitioner made a timely request pursuant 
to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) for a 50-day 
postponement of the preliminary determination. Pursuant to section 
733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department postponed the preliminary 
determination of this investigation until February 24, 2010. See 
Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of China and 
Mexico: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations, 74 FR 66954 (December 17, 2009). As explained in the 
memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll 
deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government 
from February 5, through February 12, 2010. Thus, all deadlines in this 
segment of the proceeding have been extended by seven days. The revised 
deadline for the preliminary determination of this investigation is now 
March 3, 2010. See Memorandum to the Record regarding ``Tolling of 
Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During 
the Recent Snowstorm,'' dated February 12, 2010.
    On December 11, 2009, the petitioner alleged that Refmex made 
comparison-market sales of bricks at prices below the cost of 
production (COP) during the period of investigation (POI).
    On January 6, 2010, we initiated an investigation to determine 
whether Refmex made comparison-market sales of bricks at prices below 
the COP during the POI. See Memorandum entitled ``The Petitioner's 
Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for RHI RefMex S.A. de 
C.V.,'' dated January 6, 2010. As a result, we requested that Refmex 
respond to section D of the questionnaire (i.e., the section covering 
COP and constructed value (CV)). See Memorandum entitled: ``Telephone 
Conversation with RHI-Refmex Counsel on Initiation of COP Investigation 
and Submission of Response to Section D of the Department's 
Questionnaire,'' dated January 7, 2010. We issued a supplemental 
section D questionnaire to Refmex in February 2010, and received a 
response later that month.
    The petitioner submitted comments for consideration with respect to 
the preliminary determination on February 12, 2010. Refmex responded to 
those comments on February 17, 2010.
    On February 17, 2010, Refmex requested that, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the 
Department: 1) postpone its final determination by 60 days, in 
accordance with 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii); 
and 2) extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed 
under 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a four-month period to a six-month 
period. For further discussion, see the ``Postponement of Final 
Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures'' section of this 
notice, below.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2009. This period corresponds 
to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the 
filing of the petition. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise under investigation consists of certain chemically-
bonded (resin or pitch), magnesia carbon bricks with a magnesia 
component of at least 70 percent magnesia (MgO) by weight, regardless 
of the source of raw materials for the MgO, with carbon levels ranging 
from trace amounts to 30 percent by weight, regardless of enhancements 
(for example, magnesia carbon bricks can be enhanced with coating, 
grinding, tar impregnation or coking, high temperature heat treatments, 
anti-slip treatments or metal casing) and regardless of whether or not 
antioxidants are present (for example, antioxidants can be added to the 
mix from trace amounts to 15 percent by weight as various metals, metal 
alloys, and metal carbides). Certain magnesia carbon bricks that are 
the subject of this investigation are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 6902.10.10.00, 6902.10.50.00, 6815.91.00.00, and 6815.99 of 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description is dispositive.

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations 
(see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 
19, 1997)), in our Initiation Notice we set aside a period of time for 
parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, and encouraged all 
parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of 
the Initiation Notice. On September 8, 2009, Pilkington North America 
Inc. (PNA), a U.S. importer of BRICKS from the People's Republic of 
China (PRC) and Mexico, filed comments concerning the scope of this 
investigation and the concurrent antidumping duty and countervailing 
duty investigations of certain magnesia carbon bricks from the PRC. In 
its submission, PNA requested that the Department amend the scope of 
these investigations to exclude ceramic-bonded magnesia bricks with or 
without trace amounts of carbon, or clarify that this product is 
outside the scope of these investigations. According to PNA, the 
ceramic-bonded magnesia bricks it

[[Page 11519]]

imports are clearly not within the intended scope of these 
investigations. The petitioner did not file comments on PNA's 
submission. On February 24, 2010, the Department issued a memorandum 
confirming that ceramic bonded magnesia bricks are not included in the 
scope of the investigations. See Memorandum entitled ``Certain Magnesia 
Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of China and Mexico: Scope 
Comments.''

Product Comparisons

    We have taken into account the comments that were submitted by the 
interested parties concerning product-comparison criteria. In 
accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products produced by 
the respondent covered by the description in the ``Scope of 
Investigation'' section, above, and sold in Mexico during the POI are 
considered to be foreign like product for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on six 
criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison-
market sales of the foreign like product: 1) magnesium oxide content 
range, 2) fused magnesia content range, 3) antioxidants, 4) carbon 
content range, 5) post-molding treatments, and 6) additives. Where 
there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in 
the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. 
sales to sales of the next most similar foreign like product on the 
basis of the characteristics listed above, which were made in the 
ordinary course of trade.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether Refmex' sales of bricks from Mexico to the 
United States were made at LTFV, we compared the constructed export 
price (CEP) to normal value (NV), as described in the ``Constructed 
Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In 
accordance with section 777A(d)(1) of the Act, we compared POI 
weighted-average CEPs to POI weighted-average NVs.
    In addition to selling bricks to unaffiliated customers, Refmex 
reported that it ships some subject merchandise in the U.S. and Mexican 
markets under ``Full Line Service Contracts.'' Under these contracts, 
Refmex claims that it or its affiliates consume bricks as part of 
broader service agreements with their customers. Refmex did not include 
bricks shipped in conjunction with these service contracts in its sales 
listings. Refmex claimed that the quantity of bricks shipped in these 
instances constitutes a relatively small percentage of the total 
quantity of bricks shipped to U.S. and Mexican customers during the 
POI. Refmex also claimed that, in fulfilling these contracts, it does 
not generate invoices specifying a quantity or price for the bricks 
shipped, and, thus, does not record sales of bricks in its accounting 
system. Rather, customers pay Refmex or its affiliates based on other 
terms specified in the contracts.
    Our analysis of the information Refmex provided, including examples 
of Full Line Service Contracts, supports Refmex' representations 
regarding the complexity of assigning values to the bricks shipped in 
the fulfillment of these contracts. Based on this analysis and Refmex' 
claim that the shipment of bricks in fulfillment of these contracts 
constitutes a relatively small percentage of the total bricks shipped 
to U.S. customers during the POI, we have excluded bricks consumed 
under these circumstances in both the home and U.S. markets from our 
margin analysis.

Constructed Export Price

    Pursuant to section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP for those 
sales where the subject merchandise was first sold in the United States 
after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or 
exporter, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporters, to 
a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter. In addition, 
we calculated CEP for those sales where the subject merchandise was 
first sold in the United States before the date of importation by 
Refmex' affiliate, Veitsch-Radex America, Inc., located in Mokena, 
Illinois (VRA), to unaffiliated purchasers. Refmex classified these 
latter sales as export price (EP) sales because it initially reported 
that these sales were made outside the United States by its affiliate 
Veitsch-Radex America, Inc., located in Burlington, Ontario, Canada 
(VRC). Subsequently, Refmex clarified that these sales were made in the 
United States by VRA. Accordingly, we have reclassified them as CEP 
sales because the merchandise was sold in the United States, before 
importation, by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter to a 
purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, consistent with 
section 772(b) of the Act. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 
10022, 10023 (March 9, 2009), unchanged in Stainless Steel Bar From 
Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 
33995 (July 14, 2009); and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel 
Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind 
Administrative Review in Part, 72 FR 65701, 65703-04 (November 23, 
2007), unchanged in Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate 
Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Rescission of Administrative Review in Part, 
73 FR 15132 (March 21, 2008).
    We based CEP on the packed, ex-warehouse or delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we 
adjusted prices for billing adjustments, discounts and rebates. We made 
deductions for movement expenses, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these expenses included, where appropriate, 
inland freight from the plant to the U.S. warehouse, U.S. brokerage and 
handling expenses (including customs fees), pre-sale warehousing 
expenses, and U.S. inland freight from the warehouse to the customer. 
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), 
we deducted those selling expenses incurred by or for the account of 
the producer or exporter in selling the subject merchandise, which are 
associated with commercial activities in the United States, no matter 
where or when paid, including direct selling expenses (i.e., credit 
expenses, technical service expenses, and warranty expenses), and 
indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs). We also 
deducted from CEP an amount for profit, in accordance with sections 
772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability and Comparison-Market Selection

    To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the 
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 is 
equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales), we compared Refmex' volume of home market sales of the foreign 
like product to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. 
See section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based on this comparison, we 
determined that Refmex had a viable home market during the POI. 
Consequently, we based NV on home market sales.

B. Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on

[[Page 11520]]

sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the 
EP or CEP. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1), the NV LOT is based on the 
starting price of the sales in the comparison market or, when NV is 
based on constructed value, the starting price of the sales from which 
we derive selling, general and administrative expenses, and profit. For 
EP sales, the U.S. LOT is based on the starting price of the sales in 
the U.S. market, which is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP 
sales, the U.S. LOT is based on the starting price of the U.S. sales, 
as adjusted under section 772(d) of the Act, which is from the exporter 
to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP 
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated 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 an LOT 
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the 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 levels between NV 
and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision). See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 - 61733 
(November 19, 1997) (Plate from South Africa).
    In this investigation, we obtained information from Refmex 
regarding the marketing stages involved in making its reported home 
market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling 
activities performed by the respondent and its affiliates for each 
channel of distribution.
    Refmex reported that it made all sales in the U.S. market to end-
users. For CEP sales, Refmex reported that its affiliate VRA, supported 
by another affiliate, VRC, made sales through five channels of 
distribution: 1) direct shipments from the Mexican plant to the U.S. 
customer; 2) ex-U.S. warehouse; 3) delivered to the U.S. customer from 
a U.S. warehouse; 4) on consignment basis ex-U.S. warehouse; and 5) on 
consignment basis delivered to the U.S. customer from a U.S. warehouse.
    Because all of Refmex' U.S. sales were CEP sales, we examined only 
the selling functions performed by Refmex for these sales, not the 
selling functions performed by its affiliates, consistent with our 
normal practice. See Plate from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732. We found 
that the only selling functions that Refmex performed for all CEP sales 
were packing, inventory maintenance (i.e., in Mexico prior to shipment 
to the U.S. customer or to U.S. warehouses for resale by Refmex 
affiliates to unaffiliated U.S. customers), and order input/processing. 
The selling functions performed for all CEP sales were identical. 
Therefore, we determined that all CEP sales constituted one LOT.
    With respect to home market sales, Refmex reported that sales were 
made to end users through two channels of distribution: 1) direct to 
customers; and 2) consignment sales from consignment inventories. We 
examined the reported selling activities and found that Refmex 
performed the following selling functions for both sales channels in 
the home market: sales forecasting, strategic/economic planning, 
engineering services, sales promotion, packing, inventory maintenance, 
order input/processing, direct sales personnel, sales/marketing 
support, market research, technical assistance, granting of rebates, 
after-sales services, and freight and delivery arrangements. 
Furthermore, we found that Refmex performed most of these selling 
functions at the same relative level of intensity for all customers in 
the comparison market. While we note some difference in intensity in 
the inventory maintenance activity between direct sales and consignment 
sales, this difference alone is not sufficient to warrant a finding 
that the two sales channels constitute different LOTs in the home 
market. Therefore, based on our overall analysis, we found that all 
home market sales constituted one LOT.
    In comparing the home market LOT to the CEP LOT, we found that the 
selling activities performed by Refmex for its CEP sales, as described 
above, were significantly fewer than the selling activities that it 
performed for its home market sales. Therefore, Refmex provided many 
more selling functions for its home market sales than it provided for 
its CEP sales, thus making the home market LOT more advanced than the 
CEP LOT.
    Based on the above, we could not match CEP sales to sales at the 
same LOT in the home market, nor could we determine an LOT adjustment 
based on Refmex' home market sales because there is only one LOT in the 
home market. Therefore, it is not possible to determine if there is a 
pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV 
is based and home market sales at the LOT of the export transaction. 
See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Furthermore, we have no other 
information that provides an appropriate basis for determining an LOT 
adjustment. Consequently, because the data available do not form an 
appropriate basis for making an LOT adjustment, even though the home 
market LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP 
LOT, we made a CEP offset to NV in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) 
of the Act. The CEP offset is calculated as the lesser of: (1) the 
indirect selling expenses incurred on the home market sales, or (2) the 
indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting price in 
calculating CEP. See id.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus an amount for general and administrative 
expenses (G&A) and interest expenses (see ``Test of Home Market Sales 
Prices'' section below for treatment of home market selling expenses 
and packing costs). We relied on the COP data submitted by Refmex in 
its January 27, 2010, response to section D of the questionnaire, 
except where noted below.
    We excluded packing expenses from the denominators of the reported 
G&A and interest expense ratios. In addition, we revised the numerator 
of the interest expense ratio to exclude the interest income offset, 
because Refmex did not demonstrate that this income was generated from 
certain short-term interest-bearing assets. We applied the revised 
ratios to Refmex' reported total cost of manufacturing to determine the 
revised G&A and financial interest expenses. See Memorandum entitled 
``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustment RHI-
Refmex S.A. de C.V.,'' dated March 3, 2010.
    For the preliminary determination, we have relied upon the POI 
weighted-average COP Refmex reported. However, depending on the extent 
to which production costs changed throughout the cost reporting period, 
we are considering whether it is more appropriate to use the 
Department's alternative cost averaging methodology for the final 
determination. Accordingly, we have requested product-specific 
quarterly cost information from Refmex

[[Page 11521]]

for consideration prior to the final determination.
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP to the home market sales prices of the foreign like 
product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine 
whether the sale prices were below the COP. The sales prices were 
exclusive of any applicable movement charges, direct and indirect 
selling expenses, and packing expenses. For purposes of this 
comparison, we used the COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses.
    3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices 
less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that 
product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made 
in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the 
respondent's sales of a given product during the POI were at prices 
less than COP, we determine that such sales have been made in 
``substantial quantities.'' See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. 
Further, we determine that the sales were made within an extended 
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, 
because we examine below-cost sales occurring during the entire POI. In 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we compare prices to 
the POI average costs to determine whether the prices permit recovery 
of costs within a reasonable period of time.
    In this case, we found that, for certain specific products, more 
than 20 percent of Refmex' sales were at prices less than the COP and, 
in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs 
within a reasonable period of time. We, therefore, excluded these sales 
and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices

    We based NV for Refmex on packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to 
unaffiliated customers in the home market. We made deductions from the 
starting price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight and 
warehousing expenses under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(b), we made, where appropriate, circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments for imputed credit expenses and technical service expenses. 
We also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 
Finally, we made a CEP offset pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). We calculated the CEP offset as the lesser 
of the indirect selling expenses incurred on the home market sales or 
the indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting price in 
calculating CEP.
    Refmex reported royalty expenses incurred on home market sales and 
paid to an affiliate, Refractory Intellectual Property (REFIP) GmbH & 
Co. KG., of Refmex' parent company, RHI AG. We have disallowed this 
selling expense claim, as Refmex was unable to demonstrate that the 
royalty payments made to its affiliate were at arm's length.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415 based on the exchange rates 
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 
Reserve Bank.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify 
the information relied upon in making our final determination for 
Refmex.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of bricks from Mexico that are entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register. We will also instruct CBP to require a 
cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average 
dumping margins, as indicated in the chart below. These suspension-of-
liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                Manufacturer/Exporter                  Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RHI-Refmex S.A. de C.V..............................               54.73
All Others..........................................               54.73
------------------------------------------------------------------------

All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated ``All 
Others'' rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the 
estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters 
and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de 
minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 
of the Act. Refmex is the only respondent in this investigation for 
which the Department calculated a company-specific rate. Therefore, for 
purposes of determining the all-others rate and pursuant to section 
735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the weighted-average dumping 
margin calculated for Refmex, as referenced above. See, e.g., Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel 
Sheet and Strip in Coils From Italy, 64 FR 30750, 30755 (June 8, 1999); 
and Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper 
from Indonesia, 72 FR 30753, 30757 (June 4, 2007), unchanged in Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free 
Sheet Paper from Indonesia, 72 FR 60636 (October 25, 2007).

Disclosure

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of 
the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters, who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative 
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by 
the petitioner. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), 
require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final 
determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional 
measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.
    On February 17, 2010, Refmex requested that in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the 
Department postpone its final determination by 60 days. At the same 
time, Refmex requested that the Department extend the application of 
the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period to a six-month period. 
In accordance

[[Page 11522]]

with section 735(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2), because: 
(1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting 
exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the 
subject merchandise; and, (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, 
we are granting this request and are postponing the final determination 
until no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in 
the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will be extended 
accordingly.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination. If the 
Department's final determination is
    affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days 
after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our 
final determination whether imports of bricks from Mexico are 
materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the U.S. 
industry (see section 735(b)(2) of the Act). Because we are postponing 
the deadline for our final determination to 135 days from the date of 
the publication of this preliminary determination, the ITC will make 
its final determination no later than 45 days after our final 
determination.

Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the 
Department no later than seven days after the date of the issuance of 
the last verification report in this proceeding. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to 
the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days 
from the deadline date for the submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an 
executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to 
the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages 
total, including footnotes. Further, we request that parties submitting 
briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a copy of the 
public version of such briefs on diskette. In accordance with section 
774 of the Act, the Department will hold a public hearing, if timely 
requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 
hearing is requested by an interested party. See also 19 CFR 
351.310(d). If a timely request for a hearing is made in this 
investigation, we intend to hold the hearing two days after the 
rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and 
in a room to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone, the 
date, time, and location of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled 
date.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
in a hearing if one is requested, must submit a written request to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. 
Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone 
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to 
be discussed. At the hearing, oral presentations will be limited to 
issues raised in the briefs.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 3, 2010.
Carole A. Showers,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-5369 Filed 3-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S