Solid Urea From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 42273-42276 [2012-17518]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
42273
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Notices
Department of Commerce, displays
public comments on the BIS Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) Web site at
https://www.bis.doc.gov/foia. This office
does not maintain a separate public
inspection facility. If you have technical
difficulties accessing this Web site,
please call BIS’s Office of
Administration at (202) 482–1900 for
assistance.
Dated: July 12, 2012.
Kevin J. Wolf,
Assistant Secretary for Export
Administration.
Attachment 1
PROPOSED SUPPLEMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2013 ANNUAL MATERIALS PLAN
Material
Unit
Footnote
cm2
LB
40,000
24,000
1
1
Proposed
revised
quantity
Approved
quantity
Footnote
3,000
100,000
568
7,992
0
222,025
0
0
1
2
1
2, 3
Cadmium Zinc Tellurium (CZT) substrates .............................................................................................................
Triamino Trinitrobenzene (TATB) ............................................................................................................................
1 Vendor-owned
Quantity
buffer inventory material research and development project.
Attachment 2
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO FISCAL YEAR 2013 ANNUAL MATERIALS PLAN
Material
Unit
Germanium ..........................................................................................................................................
Manganese Metallurgical Grade ..........................................................................................................
Platinum—Iridium .................................................................................................................................
Zinc ......................................................................................................................................................
1 Upgrade
kg
SDT
Tr Oz
ST
project.
2 Disposal.
3 Actual
quantity will be limited to remaining inventory.
not later than 120 days after the date of
publication of this notice.
[FR Doc. 2012–17460 Filed 7–17–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–33–P
DATES:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dustin Ross or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0747 or (202) 482–
1690, respectively.
International Trade Administration
[A–821–801]
Solid Urea From the Russian
Federation: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on solid urea
from the Russian Federation. The
review covers one producer/exporter of
the subject merchandise, MCC
EuroChem (EuroChem). The period of
review (POR) is July 1, 2010, through
June 30, 2011. We have preliminarily
found that sales of the subject
merchandise have not been made at
prices below normal value.
We invite interested parties to
comment on these preliminary results.
Parties who submit argument in this
proceeding are requested to submit with
the argument (1) a statement of the issue
and (2) a brief summary of the
argument. We will issue the final results
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jul 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
Effective July 18, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Background
Pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
and 19 CFR 351.213(b), the Ad Hoc
Committee of Domestic Nitrogen
Producers and its individual ureaproducing members, CF Industries, Inc.,
and PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P.
(collectively, the petitioners) and
EuroChem requested an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on solid urea from Russia with respect
to EuroChem on August 1, 2011.1 On
August 26, 2011, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a
notice of initiation of administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on solid urea from the Russian
1 See the petitioners’ letter to the Department,
dated August 1, 2011, at 1, and EuroChem’s letter
to the Department, dated August 1, 2011, at 1,
respectively.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Federation.2 On March 26, 2012, we
extended the deadline for the
preliminary results by 75 days, to June
15, 2012.3 On June 1, 2012, we extended
the deadline for the preliminary results
by an additional 26 days, to July 11,
2012.4 We are conducting the
administrative review of the order in
accordance with section 751(a) of the
Act.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to the order
is solid urea, a high-nitrogen content
fertilizer which is produced by reacting
ammonia with carbon dioxide. The
product is currently classified under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the
United States (HTSUS) item number
3102.10.00.00. Such merchandise was
classified previously under item number
480.3000 of the Tariff Schedules of the
United States. Although the HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written
description of the merchandise subject
to the order is dispositive.
2 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Requests for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 53404
(August 26, 2011).
3 See Solid Urea From the Russian Federation:
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR
17410 (March 26, 2012).
4 See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, ‘‘Solid
Urea from the Russian Federation: Extension of
Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review.’’
E:\FR\FM\18JYN1.SGM
18JYN1
42274
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Notices
Fair-Value Comparisons
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.414(c)(1) and
(d), to determine whether EuroChem’s
sales of solid urea from Russia were
made in the United States at less than
normal value, we compared the
constructed export price (CEP) to the
normal value as described in the
‘‘Constructed Export Price’’ and
‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.
In these preliminary results, the
Department applied the average-toaverage comparison methodology
adopted in the Final Modification for
Reviews.5 In particular, the Department
compared monthly, weighted-average
CEPs with monthly, weighted-average
normal values, and granted offsets for
non-dumped comparisons in the
calculation of the weighted-average
dumping margin.
When making this comparison in
accordance with section 771(16) of the
Act, we considered all products sold in
the home market as described in the
‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section of this
notice, above, that were in the ordinary
course of trade for purposes of
determining an appropriate product
comparison to the U.S. sale. If
contemporaneous sales of identical
home-market merchandise, as described
below, were reported, then we made
comparisons to the monthly weightedaverage home-market prices that were
based on all such sales. If there were no
contemporaneous sales of an identical
merchandise, then we identified sales of
the most similar merchandise that were
contemporaneous with the U.S. sales in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.414(e).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of
the Act, we compared products
produced by EuroChem and sold in the
U.S. and home markets on the basis of
the comparison product which was
either identical or most similar in terms
of the physical characteristics to the
product sold in the United States. In the
order of importance, these physical
characteristics are form, grade, nitrogen
content, size, urea-formaldehyde
content, other additive/conditioning
agent, coating agent, and biuret content.
Date of Sale
Section 351.401(i) of the Department’s
regulations states that, normally, the
Department will use the date of invoice,
as recorded in the producer’s or
5 See
Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of
the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and
Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping
Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101
(February 14, 2012) (‘‘Final Modification for
Reviews’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jul 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
exporter’s records kept in the ordinary
course of business, as the date of sale.
The regulation provides further that the
Department may use a date other than
the date of the invoice if the Secretary
is satisfied that a different date better
reflects the date on which the material
terms of sale are established. For all U.S.
sales, EuroChem reported contract date
as the date of sale. EuroChem defines
contract date, which coincides with
shipment date for all U.S. sales during
the period of review, as the date on
which the material terms of sale are
established and no longer subject to
change. EuroChem provided sample
contracts for U.S. sales covered by this
review, which support EuroChem’s
contention that price and quantity are
subject to change and not finalized until
the date of contract.6 Based on record
evidence, and consistent with previous
administrative reviews, all material
terms of sale are established on the date
of contract.7 Therefore, we have used
contract date as reported by EuroChem
as the date of sale for all U.S. sales.
With respect to its home-market sales,
EuroChem reported invoice date as the
date of sale, explaining that price and
quantity are not finalized and are
subject to change until invoicing
because at the date of invoice, the
product is loaded for delivery, weighed,
and the exact quantity is recorded for
the invoice and transportation
documents.8 This is consistent with our
regulatory presumption for invoice date
as the date of sale.9 Thus, because the
evidence does not demonstrate that the
material terms of sale were established
on another date, and consistent with
previous reviews, we have used invoice
date as the date of sale in the home
market.10
Constructed Export Price
In accordance with section 772(b) of
the Act, we used CEP for EuroChem
because the subject merchandise was
sold in the United States by a U.S. seller
affiliated with the producer and export
price was not otherwise indicated.
We calculated CEP based on the freeon-board or delivered price to
unaffiliated purchasers in, or for
exportation to, the United States. We
also made deductions for any movement
6 See VI–57 of EuroChem’s October 27, 2011,
response to the Department’s questionnaire.
7 See Solid Urea from the Russian Federation:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 76 FR 66690 (October 27, 2011).
8 See VI–41 of EuroChem’s October 27, 2011,
response to the Department’s questionnaire.
9 See 19 CFR 351.401(i).
10 See Solid Urea from the Russian Federation:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 76 FR 66690 (October 27, 2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
expenses in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. In accordance
with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we
calculated the CEP by deducting selling
expenses associated with economic
activities occurring in the United States,
which includes direct selling expenses
and indirect selling expenses. Finally,
we made an adjustment for profit
allocated to these expenses in
accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the
Act.
Normal Value
A. Home Market Viability as
Comparison Market
In order to determine whether there is
a sufficient volume of sales in the home
market to serve as a viable basis for
calculating normal value (i.e., the
aggregate volume of home-market sales
of the foreign like product is five
percent or more of the aggregate volume
of U.S. sales), we compared the volume
of EuroChem’s home-market sales of the
foreign like product to the volume of its
U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of
the Act.11 Based on this comparison, we
determined that EuroChem had a viable
home market during the POR.
Consequently, we based normal value
on home-market sales to unaffiliated
purchasers made in the usual quantities
in the ordinary course of trade and sales
made to affiliated purchasers where we
find prices were made at arm’s length,
described in detail below.
B. Level of Trade
To the extent practicable, we
determined normal value for sales at the
same level of trade as the U.S. sales.
When there were no sales at the same
level of trade, we compared U.S. sales
to home-market sales at a different level
of trade. The normal-value level of trade
is that of the starting-price sales in the
home market. For CEP, the level of trade
is that of the constructed sale from the
exporter to the affiliated importer. To
determine whether home-market sales
are at a different level of trade than U.S.
sales, we examined stages in the
marketing process and selling functions
along the chain of distribution between
the producer and the unaffiliated
customer.
In the home market, EuroChem
reported a single channel of
distribution. Within this single channel
of distribution, EuroChem reported a
11 See Memorandum titled ‘‘2010–2011
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Solid Urea from the Russian Federation—
Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum for
EuroChem,’’ (‘‘Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum’’) dated concurrently with this
notice, at 2.
E:\FR\FM\18JYN1.SGM
18JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Notices
single level of trade for all three
customer types (i.e., distributors,
traders, and end-users). After analyzing
the data on the record with respect to
the selling functions performed for each
customer type, we find that EuroChem
made all home-market sales at a single
marketing stage (i.e., one level of trade)
in the home market.12
In the U.S. market, EuroChem had
only CEP sales through its affiliated
reseller 13 and, thus, a single level of
trade.14
We found that there were significant
differences between the selling activities
associated with the CEP level of trade
and those associated with the homemarket level of trade. For example, the
CEP level of trade involved little or no
strategic and economic planning,
personnel training, distributor/dealer
training, procurement/sourcing service,
packing, order input/processing and
freight/delivery services.15 Therefore,
we have concluded that CEP sales
constitute a different level of trade from
the level of trade in the home market
and that the home-market level of trade
is at a more advanced stage of
distribution than the CEP level of trade.
We were unable to match CEP sales at
the same level of trade in the home
market or to make a level-of-trade
adjustment because the differences in
price between the CEP level of trade and
the home-market level of trade cannot
be quantified due to the lack of an
equivalent CEP level of trade in the
home market. Also, there are no other
data on the record which would allow
us to make a level-of-trade adjustment.
Because the data available does not
provide an appropriate basis on which
to determine a level-of-trade adjustment
and the home-market level of trade is at
a more advanced stage of distribution
than the CEP, we made a CEP-offset
adjustment to normal value in
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). The CEP
offset was the sum of indirect selling
expenses incurred on home-market sales
up to the amount of indirect selling
expenses incurred on the U.S. sales. See
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at
2.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based
on Comparison Market Prices
We based normal value on the starting
prices to home-market customers.
12 See VI–36 through VI–46 of EuroChem’s
October 27, 2011, response to the Department’s
questionnaire.
13 See IV–13 of EuroChem’s November 8, 2011,
response to the Department’s questionnaire.
14 See section 772(b) of the Act.
15 See VI–44 to VI–45 of EuroChem’s October 27,
2011, response to the Department’s questionnaire.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jul 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of
the Act, we deducted inland-freight
expenses EuroChem incurred on its
home-market sales. We made
adjustments for differences in domestic
and export packing expenses in
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A)
and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. We made
deductions for direct selling expenses,
as appropriate. See Preliminary
Analysis Memorandum at 5 through 6.
Affiliation
The Department may calculate normal
value based on a sale to an affiliated
party only if it is satisfied that the price
to the affiliated party is comparable to
the price at which sales are made to
parties not affiliated with the exporter
or producer, i.e., sales were made at
arm’s-length prices.16 We excluded from
our analysis home-market sales to an
affiliated customer for consumption in
the home market where we determined
that the sales to that affiliated customer
were not made at arm’s-length prices.
To test whether the sales to an affiliated
customer were made at arm’s-length
prices, we compared these prices to the
prices of sales of comparable
merchandise to unaffiliated customers,
net of all rebates, movement charges,
direct selling expenses, and packing.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in
accordance with our practice, when the
prices charged to an affiliated customer
were, on average, between 98 and 102
percent of the prices charged to
unaffiliated parties for merchandise
comparable to that sold to the affiliated
customer, we determined that the sales
to that affiliated customer were at arm’slength prices.17 We exclude from our
analysis all sales to an affiliated
customer for consumption in the home
market where we determined that these
sales, on average, were not sold at arm’slength prices. See Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum at 4.
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.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we
preliminarily determine that a dumping
margin of 0.00 percent exists for
EuroChem for the period July 1, 2010,
through June 30, 2011.
Disclosure and Public Comment
The Department intends to disclose to
interested parties the calculations
performed in connection with these
preliminary results within five days of
the date of publication of this notice.18
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c),
interested parties may submit cases
briefs not later than the later of 30 days
after the date of publication of this
notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues
raised in the case briefs, may be filed
not later than five days after the date for
filing case briefs.19 Parties who submit
case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this
proceeding are encouraged to submit
with each argument: (1) A statement of
the issue; (2) a brief summary of the
argument; and (3) a table of
authorities.20 Case and rebuttal briefs
should be filed using Import
Administration’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (IA
ACCESS).21
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c),
interested parties who wish to request a
hearing, or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, filed
electronically via IA ACCESS. An
electronically filed document must be
received successfully in its entirety by
the Department’s electronic records
system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time within 30 days after the
date of publication of this notice.22
Requests should contain: (1) The party’s
name, address, and telephone number;
(2) the number of participants; and (3)
a list of issues to be discussed. Issues
raised in the hearing will be limited to
those raised in the respective case
briefs. The Department will issue the
final results of this administrative
review, including the results of its
analysis of the issues raised in any
written briefs, not later than 120 days
after the date of publication of this
notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A)
of the Act.
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the
Department shall determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review. EuroChem reported the name of
the importer of record and the entered
value for all of its sales to the United
States during the POR. If EuroChem’s
weighted-average dumping margin is
18 See
19 CFR 351.403(c).
17 See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party
Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186
(November 15, 2002).
PO 00000
16 See
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42275
19 CFR 351.224(b).
19 CFR 351.309(d).
20 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
21 See 19 CFR 351.303.
22 See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
19 See
E:\FR\FM\18JYN1.SGM
18JYN1
42276
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Notices
above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent) in
the final results of this review, we will
calculate an importer-specific
assessment rate on the basis of the ratio
of the total amount of dumping
calculated for the importer’s examined
sales and the total entered value of those
sales in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1).
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. This clarification will
apply to entries of subject merchandise
during the POR produced by EuroChem
for which it did not know its
merchandise was destined for the
United States. In such instances, we will
instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed
entries at the all-others rate if there is no
rate for the intermediate company(ies)
involved in the transaction. For a full
discussion of this clarification, see
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May
6, 2003).
We intend to issue instructions to
CBP 15 days after publication of the
final results of this review.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements
will be effective upon publication of the
notice of final results of administrative
review for all shipments of solid urea
from the Russian Federation entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of
publication as provided by section
751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit
rate for EuroChem will be the rate
established in the final results of this
administrative review; (2) for
merchandise exported by manufacturers
or exporters not covered in this review
but covered in a prior segment of the
proceeding, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3)
if the exporter is not a firm covered in
this review, a prior review, or the
original 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; (4) the cash deposit
rate for all other manufacturers or
exporters will continue to be 64.93
percent, the all-others rate established
in Urea From the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics; Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 52 FR
19557 (May 26, 1987). These cash
deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further
notice.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jul 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
Notification to Importers
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these
results in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Elizabeth Gorman at (202) 482–1174 or
Yasmin Nair at (202) 482–3813; AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Dated: July 11, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–17518 Filed 7–17–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–827]
Certain Cased Pencils From the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation
and Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review, and Intent To
Revoke Order in Part
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In accordance with section
751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), and 19 CFR
351.216(b), ThinkGeek, Inc.
(ThinkGeek) filed a request for a
changed circumstances review of the
antidumping duty (AD) order on certain
cased pencils (pencils) from the
People’s Republic of China (PRC) to
revoke the AD order with respect to
novelty drumstick pencils. The
domestic industry has affirmatively
expressed a lack of interest in
continuing the AD order with respect to
this product. In response to ThinkGeek’s
request, the Department of Commerce
(the Department) is initiating a changed
circumstances review to be conducted
on an expedited basis and issuing a
notice of preliminary intent to revoke,
in part, this order. Pursuant to
ThinkGeek’s request, this partial
revocation would be applied
retroactively to June 1, 2011. Interested
parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2011.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Background
On December 28, 1994, the
Department published in the Federal
Register the AD order on certain cased
pencils from China. See Antidumping
Duty Order: Certain Cased Pencils from
the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR
66909 (December 28, 1994) (AD order).
On May 23, 2012, in accordance with
section 751(b) and 751(d)(1) of the Act,
19 CFR 351.216(b), and 19 CFR
351.222(g)(1), ThinkGeek, a U.S.
importer of subject merchandise,
requested revocation in part, of the AD
order with respect to its novelty pencil,
which is shaped like a drumstick, as
part of a changed circumstances review.
ThinkGeek’s novelty drumstick pencil is
made to look like a pencil, except that
it is shaped as a drumstick. This pencil
is longer than regular wooden pencils
and does not contain an eraser.
ThinkGeek requested that the
Department conduct the changed
circumstances review on an expedited
basis pursuant to 19 CFR
351.221(c)(3)(ii).
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by this order are
shipments of certain cased pencils of
any shape or dimension (except as
described below) which are writing and/
or drawing instruments that feature
cores of graphite or other materials,
encased in wood and/or man-made
materials, whether or not decorated and
whether or not tipped (e.g., with erasers,
etc.) in any fashion, and either
sharpened or unsharpened. The pencils
subject to the order are currently
classifiable under subheading
9609.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Specifically excluded from the scope of
the order are mechanical pencils,
cosmetic pencils, pens, non-cased
crayons (wax), pastels, charcoals,
chalks, and pencils produced under
U.S. patent number 6,217,242, from
paper infused with scents by the means
covered in the above-referenced patent,
thereby having odors distinct from those
that may emanate from pencils lacking
the scent infusion. Also excluded from
the scope of the order are pencils with
all of the following physical
characteristics: (1) Length: 13.5 or more
inches; (2) sheath diameter: not less
than one-and-one quarter inches at any
E:\FR\FM\18JYN1.SGM
18JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42273-42276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17518]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-821-801]
Solid Urea From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solid urea from
the Russian Federation. The review covers one producer/exporter of the
subject merchandise, MCC EuroChem (EuroChem). The period of review
(POR) is July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011. We have preliminarily
found that sales of the subject merchandise have not been made at
prices below normal value.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested
to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a
brief summary of the argument. We will issue the final results not
later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
DATES: Effective July 18, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dustin Ross or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0747 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), the Ad Hoc Committee of Domestic
Nitrogen Producers and its individual urea-producing members, CF
Industries, Inc., and PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P. (collectively, the
petitioners) and EuroChem requested an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on solid urea from Russia with respect to
EuroChem on August 1, 2011.\1\ On August 26, 2011, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice of initiation of
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solid urea from
the Russian Federation.\2\ On March 26, 2012, we extended the deadline
for the preliminary results by 75 days, to June 15, 2012.\3\ On June 1,
2012, we extended the deadline for the preliminary results by an
additional 26 days, to July 11, 2012.\4\ We are conducting the
administrative review of the order in accordance with section 751(a) of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See the petitioners' letter to the Department, dated August
1, 2011, at 1, and EuroChem's letter to the Department, dated August
1, 2011, at 1, respectively.
\2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 76 FR
53404 (August 26, 2011).
\3\ See Solid Urea From the Russian Federation: Extension of
Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 77 FR 17410 (March 26, 2012).
\4\ See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, ``Solid Urea from the
Russian Federation: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to the order is solid urea, a high-nitrogen
content fertilizer which is produced by reacting ammonia with carbon
dioxide. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized
Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS) item number
3102.10.00.00. Such merchandise was classified previously under item
number 480.3000 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States. Although
the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is
dispositive.
[[Page 42274]]
Fair-Value Comparisons
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.414(c)(1) and (d), to determine whether EuroChem's sales of solid
urea from Russia were made in the United States at less than normal
value, we compared the constructed export price (CEP) to the normal
value as described in the ``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal
Value'' sections of this notice. In these preliminary results, the
Department applied the average-to-average comparison methodology
adopted in the Final Modification for Reviews.\5\ In particular, the
Department compared monthly, weighted-average CEPs with monthly,
weighted-average normal values, and granted offsets for non-dumped
comparisons in the calculation of the weighted-average dumping margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-
Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping
Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012)
(``Final Modification for Reviews'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When making this comparison in accordance with section 771(16) of
the Act, we considered all products sold in the home market as
described in the ``Scope of the Order'' section of this notice, above,
that were in the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining
an appropriate product comparison to the U.S. sale. If contemporaneous
sales of identical home-market merchandise, as described below, were
reported, then we made comparisons to the monthly weighted-average
home-market prices that were based on all such sales. If there were no
contemporaneous sales of an identical merchandise, then we identified
sales of the most similar merchandise that were contemporaneous with
the U.S. sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.414(e).
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we compared products
produced by EuroChem and sold in the U.S. and home markets on the basis
of the comparison product which was either identical or most similar in
terms of the physical characteristics to the product sold in the United
States. In the order of importance, these physical characteristics are
form, grade, nitrogen content, size, urea-formaldehyde content, other
additive/conditioning agent, coating agent, and biuret content.
Date of Sale
Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that,
normally, the Department will use the date of invoice, as recorded in
the producer's or exporter's records kept in the ordinary course of
business, as the date of sale. The regulation provides further that the
Department may use a date other than the date of the invoice if the
Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date
on which the material terms of sale are established. For all U.S.
sales, EuroChem reported contract date as the date of sale. EuroChem
defines contract date, which coincides with shipment date for all U.S.
sales during the period of review, as the date on which the material
terms of sale are established and no longer subject to change. EuroChem
provided sample contracts for U.S. sales covered by this review, which
support EuroChem's contention that price and quantity are subject to
change and not finalized until the date of contract.\6\ Based on record
evidence, and consistent with previous administrative reviews, all
material terms of sale are established on the date of contract.\7\
Therefore, we have used contract date as reported by EuroChem as the
date of sale for all U.S. sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See VI-57 of EuroChem's October 27, 2011, response to the
Department's questionnaire.
\7\ See Solid Urea from the Russian Federation: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 66690 (October 27,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to its home-market sales, EuroChem reported invoice
date as the date of sale, explaining that price and quantity are not
finalized and are subject to change until invoicing because at the date
of invoice, the product is loaded for delivery, weighed, and the exact
quantity is recorded for the invoice and transportation documents.\8\
This is consistent with our regulatory presumption for invoice date as
the date of sale.\9\ Thus, because the evidence does not demonstrate
that the material terms of sale were established on another date, and
consistent with previous reviews, we have used invoice date as the date
of sale in the home market.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See VI-41 of EuroChem's October 27, 2011, response to the
Department's questionnaire.
\9\ See 19 CFR 351.401(i).
\10\ See Solid Urea from the Russian Federation: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 66690 (October 27,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constructed Export Price
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for
EuroChem because the subject merchandise was sold in the United States
by a U.S. seller affiliated with the producer and export price was not
otherwise indicated.
We calculated CEP based on the free-on-board or delivered price to
unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States.
We also made deductions for any movement expenses in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(d)(1)
of the Act, we calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses
associated with economic activities occurring in the United States,
which includes direct selling expenses and indirect selling expenses.
Finally, we made an adjustment for profit allocated to these expenses
in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
Normal Value
A. Home Market Viability as Comparison Market
In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating normal
value (i.e., the aggregate volume of home-market sales of the foreign
like product is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S.
sales), we compared the volume of EuroChem's home-market sales of the
foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of subject
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.\11\
Based on this comparison, we determined that EuroChem had a viable home
market during the POR. Consequently, we based normal value on home-
market sales to unaffiliated purchasers made in the usual quantities in
the ordinary course of trade and sales made to affiliated purchasers
where we find prices were made at arm's length, described in detail
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Memorandum titled ``2010-2011 Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on Solid Urea from the Russian
Federation--Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum for EuroChem,''
(``Preliminary Analysis Memorandum'') dated concurrently with this
notice, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Level of Trade
To the extent practicable, we determined normal value for sales at
the same level of trade as the U.S. sales. When there were no sales at
the same level of trade, we compared U.S. sales to home-market sales at
a different level of trade. The normal-value level of trade is that of
the starting-price sales in the home market. For CEP, the level of
trade is that of the constructed sale from the exporter to the
affiliated importer. To determine whether home-market sales are at a
different level of trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the
marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution
between the producer and the unaffiliated customer.
In the home market, EuroChem reported a single channel of
distribution. Within this single channel of distribution, EuroChem
reported a
[[Page 42275]]
single level of trade for all three customer types (i.e., distributors,
traders, and end-users). After analyzing the data on the record with
respect to the selling functions performed for each customer type, we
find that EuroChem made all home-market sales at a single marketing
stage (i.e., one level of trade) in the home market.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See VI-36 through VI-46 of EuroChem's October 27, 2011,
response to the Department's questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the U.S. market, EuroChem had only CEP sales through its
affiliated reseller \13\ and, thus, a single level of trade.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See IV-13 of EuroChem's November 8, 2011, response to the
Department's questionnaire.
\14\ See section 772(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We found that there were significant differences between the
selling activities associated with the CEP level of trade and those
associated with the home-market level of trade. For example, the CEP
level of trade involved little or no strategic and economic planning,
personnel training, distributor/dealer training, procurement/sourcing
service, packing, order input/processing and freight/delivery
services.\15\ Therefore, we have concluded that CEP sales constitute a
different level of trade from the level of trade in the home market and
that the home-market level of trade is at a more advanced stage of
distribution than the CEP level of trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See VI-44 to VI-45 of EuroChem's October 27, 2011, response
to the Department's questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We were unable to match CEP sales at the same level of trade in the
home market or to make a level-of-trade adjustment because the
differences in price between the CEP level of trade and the home-market
level of trade cannot be quantified due to the lack of an equivalent
CEP level of trade in the home market. Also, there are no other data on
the record which would allow us to make a level-of-trade adjustment.
Because the data available does not provide an appropriate basis on
which to determine a level-of-trade adjustment and the home-market
level of trade is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the
CEP, we made a CEP-offset adjustment to normal value in accordance with
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). The CEP offset
was the sum of indirect selling expenses incurred on home-market sales
up to the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on the U.S.
sales. See Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 2.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
We based normal value on the starting prices to home-market
customers. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we deducted
inland-freight expenses EuroChem incurred on its home-market sales. We
made adjustments for differences in domestic and export packing
expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i)
of the Act. We made deductions for direct selling expenses, as
appropriate. See Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 5 through 6.
Affiliation
The Department may calculate normal value based on a sale to an
affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the
affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to
parties not affiliated with the exporter or producer, i.e., sales were
made at arm's-length prices.\16\ We excluded from our analysis home-
market sales to an affiliated customer for consumption in the home
market where we determined that the sales to that affiliated customer
were not made at arm's-length prices. To test whether the sales to an
affiliated customer were made at arm's-length prices, we compared these
prices to the prices of sales of comparable merchandise to unaffiliated
customers, net of all rebates, movement charges, direct selling
expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance
with our practice, when the prices charged to an affiliated customer
were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to
unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to that sold to the
affiliated customer, we determined that the sales to that affiliated
customer were at arm's-length prices.\17\ We exclude from our analysis
all sales to an affiliated customer for consumption in the home market
where we determined that these sales, on average, were not sold at
arm's-length prices. See Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 19 CFR 351.403(c).
\17\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the
Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a
dumping margin of 0.00 percent exists for EuroChem for the period July
1, 2010, through June 30, 2011.
Disclosure and Public Comment
The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the
calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results
within five days of the date of publication of this notice.\18\
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit cases
briefs not later than the later of 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised
in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the
date for filing case briefs.\19\ Parties who submit case briefs or
rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each
argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the
argument; and (3) a table of authorities.\20\ Case and rebuttal briefs
should be filed using Import Administration's Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA
ACCESS).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 19 CFR 351.224(b).
\19\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
\20\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
\21\ See 19 CFR 351.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to
request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
filed electronically via IA ACCESS. An electronically filed document
must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's
electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.\22\
Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be
discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised
in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the final
results of this administrative review, including the results of its
analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120
days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine,
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
covered by this review. EuroChem reported the name of the importer of
record and the entered value for all of its sales to the United States
during the POR. If EuroChem's weighted-average dumping margin is
[[Page 42276]]
above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent) in the final results of this
review, we will calculate an importer-specific assessment rate on the
basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the
importer's examined sales and the total entered value of those sales in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced by EuroChem for which it did not
know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such
instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the
all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies)
involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this
clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of
the final results of this review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for
all shipments of solid urea from the Russian Federation entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash
deposit rate for EuroChem will be the rate established in the final
results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by
manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a
prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to
be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3)
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review,
or the original 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; (4) the cash deposit rate for all
other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 64.93 percent, the
all-others rate established in Urea From the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 52 FR
19557 (May 26, 1987). These cash deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 11, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-17518 Filed 7-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
