Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices 20313 

review Marsan Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret 

A.S. (Marsan), in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.213(b)(1). On August 31, 2010, 

we published the notice of initiation of 

review of Marsan. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Deferral of 

Initiation of Administrative Review, 75 

FR 53274 (August 31, 2010). The 

preliminary results of review are 

currently due April 4, 2011. 

Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary 

Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’), 

requires that the Department make a 

preliminary determination within 245 

days after the last day of the anniversary 

month of an order for which a review 

is requested. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act further states that, if it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within the time period specified, the 

administering the authority may extend 

the 245-day period to issue its 

preliminary results to up to 365 days. 

We determine that completion of the 

preliminary results of this review within 

the 245-day period is not practicable for 

the following reasons. The Department 

needs additional time to analyze 

complex issues regarding affiliation and 

knowledge of U.S. destination. Given 

the complexity of these issues, and in 

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act, we are extending the time 

period for issuing the preliminary 

results of this review by 30 days. 

Therefore, the preliminary results are 

now due no later than May 4, 2011. The 

final results continue to be due 120 days 

after publication of the preliminary 

results. 

This notice is published pursuant to 

sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: April 4, 2011. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8566 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M 

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 

petitioner Aqualon Company, a unit of 

Hercules Incorporated (Aqualon), 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 

Quimica Amtex S.A. de C.V. (Amtex); 

the period of review (POR) is July 1, 

2009, through June 30, 2010. 

We preliminarily find that Amtex has 

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, and (3) a table of authorities. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 12, 2011. 

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 1, 

2010, the Department published the 

notice of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of CMC from 

Mexico for the period of July 1, 2009, 

through June 30, 2010. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation: Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 38074 

(July 1, 2010). On July 26, 2010, 

petitioner Aqualon requested an 

administrative review of Amtex. On 

August 31, 2010, 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 and Deferral of Initiation of 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 53274 

(August 31, 2010). 

On September 21, 2010, the 

Department issued its standard 

antidumping duty questionnaire to 

Amtex. Amtex submitted its response to 

section A of the Department’s 

questionnaire on October 15, 2010 

(Amtex Section A Response). Amtex 

submitted corrections to its section A 

response on October 18, 2010. Amtex 

submitted its response to sections B and 

C of the Department’s questionnaire on 

November 29, 2010 (Amtex Sections B 

and C Response). On March 7, 2011, the 

Department issued a supplemental 

section A, B, and C questionnaire to 

Amtex. Amtex timely submitted its 

response to the Department’s 

supplemental section A, B, and C 

questionnaire on March 14, 2011 

(Amtex Supplemental Response). 

Period of Review 

The POR is July 1, 2009, through June 

30, 2010. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order is all purified 

carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), 

sometimes also referred to as purified 

sodium CMC, polyanionic cellulose, or 

cellulose gum, which is a white to offwhite, non-toxic, odorless, 

biodegradable powder, comprising 

sodium CMC that has been refined and 

purified to a minimum assay of 90 

percent. Purified CMC does not include 

unpurified or crude CMC, CMC 

Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, and 

CMC that is cross-linked through heat 

treatment. Purified CMC is CMC that 

has undergone one or more purification 

operations which, at a minimum, reduce 

the remaining salt and other by-product 

portion of the product to less than ten 

percent. The merchandise subject to this 

order is classified in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States at 

subheading 3912.31.00. This tariff 

classification is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes; 

however, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

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). However, 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,’’ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
20314 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices 

the Department may choose a different 

date. Id. Amtex has reported the 

commercial 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. Id. In these instances, 

delivery is made to the customer and a 

pro forma invoice is issued. However, 

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 that the definite invoice is 

issued on or before the shipment date. 

We have used the shipment date as the 

date of sale where the invoice is issued 

after the shipment date. See Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Mexico: 

Preliminary Results Analysis 

Memorandum for Quimica Amtex, S.A. 

de C.V., dated April 2, 2011 (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 7046 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 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 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 September 21, 2010, 

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). However, in 

accordance with our normal practice, 

the CV calculation was performed in 

case NV is based on CV for the final 

results. See the CV section below. 

Export Price (EP) 

Section 772(a) of the 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 Act. In accordance with section 

772(a) of the 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. We 

made deductions for movement 

expenses in accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the 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 an 

adjustment for direct selling expenses 

(credit expenses) in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 

Constructed Export Price (CEP) 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the 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 Act. In accordance with section 

772(b) of the 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’s Section A 

Response at A2–A3, A10–A11, and 

Exhibit A–6. 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. We made deductions for 

movement expenses in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the 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 

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 an 

adjustment for CEP profit as 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 

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 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 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices 20315 

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 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 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 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 Act. 

Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the 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 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 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), unchanged in Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Certain HotRolled 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)(3) of the 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 sold CMC to endusers 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 A14. 

Amtex claimed a single level of trade in 

the home market, stating that it 

performs virtually the same selling 

functions to either category of customer. 

Id. 

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–7. 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 A15–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–7. 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 EP sales and a 

single level of trade for CEP sales 

through two channels of distribution 

(i.e., end-users and distributors) in each. 

See Amtex Section C Response at C26. 

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, U.S. sales personnel, 

technical assistance, warranties, aftersales services and arranging delivery. 

See Amtex’s Section A Response at 

Exhibit A–7. In terms of 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. However, 

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 between the home market and the 

U.S. 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, 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 A18. Amtex specifically 

states that Amtex ‘‘made no sales in the 

home market or other markets at the 

same level of trade as its CEP sales for 

the U.S.’’ Id. However, we find that the 

CEP LOT is more advanced than the NV 

LOT. Amtex’s Section C Response 

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 C48. 

Amtex reports that many of the 

principal functions in both markets are 

carried out by a single employee in the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
20316 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices 

Mexico office. While U.S. employees of 

Amtex Chemicals do perform important 

selling functions, such as contacting 

customers and negotiating prices, the 

preponderance of overall selling 

functions are, in fact, performed by the 

Amtex employee in Mexico City. The 

record indicates this employee devotes 

a disproportionate amount of his efforts 

on CEP sales, despite the fact that both 

the Mexican home market and Amtex’s 

EP market are considerably larger than 

Amtex’s CEP market. From our analysis 

of Amtex’s overall selling functions, it is 

evident that the intensity of activity for 

the principal 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 

advanced stage of distribution than the 

NV LOT. See Analysis Memorandum at 

4–7. 

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 

advanced stage of distribution 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 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 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, 2009, 

through June 30, 2010: 

Producer/Exporter 

Weighted-average 

margin 

(percentage) 

Quimica Amtex, S.A. 

de C.V ................... 0.80 

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 

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 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices 20317 

1See Memorandum to the File, from James C. 

Doyle, Office Director, through Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, Preliminary 

Intent to Rescind the New Shipper Review of 

Pujiang Talent Diamond Tools Co., Ltd., dated 

March 9, 2011 (‘‘Preliminary Intent to Rescind’’). 

2See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from 

the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 75 FR 

36632 (June 28, 2010). 

3Certain business proprietary information (‘‘BPI’’) 

regarding the rescission of this NSR has been 

addressed in a public manner in this notice. For an 

explanation of the BPI relied upon, see 

Memorandum to the File, from Alan Ray, Case 

Analyst, Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China: BPI 

Referenced in Final Rescission, dated concurrently 

with this notice. 

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 Act and 19 

CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: April 4, 2011. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8741 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–900] 

Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On March 9, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) issued its preliminary 

intent to rescind the new shipper review 

(‘‘NSR’’) of Pujiang Talent Diamond 

Tools Co., Ltd. (‘‘PTDT’’).1 We gave 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on the Preliminary Intent to 

Rescind and, based upon our analysis of 

the comments and rebuttal comments 

received, we continue to determine that 

PTDT has failed to meet the minimum 

requirements for entitlement to an NSR. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 12, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Ray, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5403. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The Department received a timely 

request from PTDT, in what at the time 

appeared to be in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.214(c), for an NSR of the 

antidumping duty order on diamond 

sawblades and parts thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). On 

June 28, 2010, the Department 

published the initiation of the NSR with 

a January 23, 2009, through April 30, 

2010 period of review (‘‘POR’’).2

On March 9, 2011, the Department 

issued its preliminary intent to rescind 

this NSR based on the sale of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR that had been produced by a 

company that had exported subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’). See 

Preliminary Intent to Rescind. 

On March 16, 2011, the Department 

received affirmative comments from 

PTDT, requesting that the Department 

not terminate the NSR. The Department 

received rebuttal comments from 

Petitioners, the Diamond Sawblades 

Manufacturers Coalition, on March 23, 

2011, requesting that the Department 

terminate the NSR. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order are 

all finished circular sawblades, whether 

slotted or not, with a working part that 

is comprised of a diamond segment or 

segments, and parts thereof, regardless 

of specification or size, except as 

specifically excluded below. Within the 

scope of the order are semifinished 

diamond sawblades, including diamond 

sawblade cores and diamond sawblade 

segments. Diamond sawblade cores are 

circular steel plates, whether or not 

attached to non-steel plates, with slots. 

Diamond sawblade cores are 

manufactured principally, but not 

exclusively, from alloy steel. A diamond 

sawblade segment consists of a mixture 

of diamonds (whether natural or 

synthetic, and regardless of the quantity 

of diamonds) and metal powders 

(including, but not limited to, iron, 

cobalt, nickel, tungsten carbide) that are 

formed together into a solid shape (from 

generally, but not limited to, a heating 

and pressing process). 

Sawblades with diamonds directly 

attached to the core with a resin or 

electroplated bond, which thereby do 

not contain a diamond segment, are not 

included within the scope of the order. 

Diamond sawblades and/or sawblade 

cores with a thickness of less than 0.025 

inches, or with a thickness greater than 

1.1 inches, are excluded from the scope 

of the order. Circular steel plates that 

have a cutting edge of non-diamond 

material, such as external teeth that 

protrude from the outer diameter of the 

plate, whether or not finished, are 

excluded from the scope of the order. 

Diamond sawblade cores with a 

Rockwell C hardness of less than 25 are 

excluded from the scope of the order. 

Diamond sawblades and/or diamond 

segment(s) with diamonds that 

predominantly have a mesh size number 

greater than 240 (such as 250 or 260) are 

excluded from the scope of the order. 

Merchandise subject to the order is 

typically imported under heading 

8202.39.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’’). When packaged together as 

a set for retail sale with an item that is 

separately classified under headings 

8202 to 8205 of the HTSUS, diamond 

sawblades or parts thereof may be 

imported under heading 8206.00.00.00 

of the HTSUS. The tariff classification is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes; however, the written 

description of the scope of the order is 

dispositive. 

Summary of Comments Received 3

On March 16, 2011, PTDT submitted 

comments regarding the Department’s 

Preliminary Intent to Rescind. PTDT 

raised four main arguments. First, the 

purpose of the NSR is to determine if 

PTDT was dumping subject 

merchandise and then to calculate its 

antidumping duty margin. To rescind 

the NSR based on an isolated incident, 

representing such a low volume, places 

too much weight on the insignificant 

incident at issue. To rescind the review 

would now be a significant waste of 

already spent time and resources. 

Second, PTDT exported subject 

merchandise produced by another 

company to fill a customer’s order, not 

in an effort to assist that company in 

circumventing payment of antidumping 

duties. Third, the Department should 

exercise its discretion and overlook this 

technical violation by applying the same 

kind of logic it employs when it extends 

the POR of an NSR so as to capture nonentered sales, or the same logic 

employed in the application of the de 

minimis provision for antidumping duty 

margins of less than 0.5 percent. Finally, 

PTDT argues that if the Department 

determines that rescission is 

appropriate, it should instead consider 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES