Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 77205

request for a hearing is made in this 

investigation, the hearing will 

tentatively be held two days after the 

rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC. Parties should confirm 

by telephone the time, date, and place 

of the hearing 48 hours before the 

scheduled time. 

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, 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. Oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. 

We will make our final determination 

not later than 135 days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

This determination is published 

pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i) of 

the Act.

Dated: December 16, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–28117 Filed 12–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–421–811] 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From 

the Netherlands

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) 

preliminarily determines that purified 

carboxymethylcellulose (‘‘CMC’’) from 

the Netherlands is being, or is likely to 

be, sold in the United States at less than 

fair value, as provided in section 733(b) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’). Interested parties are 

invited to comment on this preliminary 

determination. Pursuant to requests 

from interested parties we are 

postponing the final determination for 

this case and extending the 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 the 

preliminary determination.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 27, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Drury at (202) 482–0195, Angelica 

Mendoza at (202) 482–3019, David Kurt 

Kraus at (202) 482–7871 or Judy Lao at 

(202) 482–7924, Import Administration, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. 

Preliminary Determination 

We preliminarily determine that 

certain purified CMC from the 

Netherlands is being sold, or is likely to 

be sold, in the United States at less than 

fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in 

section 733 of the Act. The estimated 

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in 

the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section 

of this notice. 

Case History 

On June 26, 2004, the Department 

initiated antidumping investigations of 

purified CMC from the Netherlands. See 

Certain Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden; 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 69 FR 40617 (July 6, 

2004) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). The 

petitioner in this investigation is 

Aqualon Company, a division of 

Hercules Incorporated. Since the 

initiation of these investigations the 

following events have occurred. 

In accordance with the preamble to 

our regulations, 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 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 

(May 19, 1997) and Initiation Notice. 

The Department did not receive any 

comments from any interested party 

regarding product coverage. 

On July 27, 2004, the United States 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

preliminarily determined that there is 

reasonable indication that imports of 

CMC from Finland, Mexico, the 

Netherlands, and Sweden are materially 

injuring the U.S. industry and the ITC 

notified the Department of its findings. 

The ITC’s notice was published on July 

30, 2004, in the Federal Register. See 

ITC Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1073–

1087 (Publication No. 45851). 

On September 3, 2004 and September 

9, 2004, the Department received 

section A questionnaire responses from 

Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry B.V. 

(‘‘ANSC’’) and Noviant B.V. 

(‘‘Noviant’’), respectively. In its section 

A response, Noviant stated that its home 

market sales were less than five percent 

of U.S. sales. Therefore, as the home 

market was not viable for the purposes 

of calculating normal value (‘‘NV’’), 

Noviant intended to report third country 

sales to Mexico for the calculation of 

NV. On September 15, 2004, petitioner 

filed a comment with the Department 

stating that Noviant’s selection of 

Mexico as the appropriate third country 

market for determining NV was flawed. 

Petitioner contended that Taiwan 

should have been the appropriate 

market because Noviant’s sales volume 

to Taiwan was second only to that of the 

United States. Petitioner requested that 

the Department obtain full sales data 

(section B responses) for Noviant’s sales 

to each of its indicated three largest 

non-U.S. export markets. On September 

24, 2004, after considering record 

evidence and all factors enumerated in 

section 19 CFR 351.404(e) of its 

regulations, the Department determined 

that Taiwan, and not Mexico, was the 

most appropriate third country market 

to be used for the purposes of 

calculating Noviant’s NV. See 

Memorandum to Richard O. Weible, 

Director, Selection of Third Country 

Market for Noviant BV (Noviant), dated 

September 24, 2004 (‘‘Third Country 

Market Memo’’). 

Also, on September 24, 2004, the 

Department received both companies’

section B and C questionnaire 

responses. On October 1, 2004, 

petitioner submitted comments on 

Noviant’s section B and C responses. In 

particular, petitioner alleged that certain 

sales of purified CMC sold in the United 

States by Noviant and/or its U.S. 

affiliates had no identical or similar 

sales in the third country market (i.e., 

Taiwan). Therefore, in its October 12, 

2004, supplemental questionnaire, the 

Department requested that Noviant 

respond to the constructed value (‘‘CV’’) 

portion of section D of the antidumping 

questionnaire for those models sold in 

the United States for which there were 

no identical or similar sales in Taiwan. 

For a discussion of the Department’s 

calculation of CV, see the ‘‘Constructed 

Value’’ section below. 

The Department issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to ANSC for 

sections A, B, and C on October 8, 2004, 

and a supplemental questionnaire for 

sections A, B and C to Noviant on 

October 12, 2004. The Department 

received questionnaire responses from 

ANSC on October 25, 2004, and October 

27, 2004. The Department received 

77206 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 

Noviant’s questionnaire response on 

October 27, 2004. 

On October 28, 2004, due to the 

complexity of this case and pursuant to 

section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the 

Department postponed the preliminary 

determination of the antidumping duty 

investigation on purified CMC from the 

Netherlands until no later than 

December 16, 2004. See Postponement 

of Preliminary Determinations of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations: 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands and 

Sweden, 69 FR 64030 (November 3, 

2004). 

On November 5, 2004, the Department 

issued Noviant a supplemental section 

D questionnaire. On November 10, 2004, 

the Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires for deficiencies 

remaining in the aforementioned 

responses of ANSC and Noviant. The 

Department received the supplemental 

section D response from Noviant on 

November 19, 2004, and supplemental 

questionnaire responses from Noviant 

and ANSC on November 23, 2004.

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 

petitioners. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations requires that 

requests by respondents for 

postponement of a final determination 

be accompanied by a request for an 

extension of the provisional measures 

from a four-month period to not more 

than six months. 

On November 19, 2004, and 

November 23, 2004, Noviant and ANSC 

respectively requested that, in the event 

of an affirmative preliminary 

determination in this investigation, the 

Department postpone the deadline for 

its final determination until a date not 

later than the 135th day after the date 

on which the Department will have 

published its notice of preliminary 

determination. Both Noviant and ANSC 

also included a request to extend the 

provisional measures from a four-month 

period to not more than six months. In 

addition, on November 19, 2004, 

petitioners requested that, in the event 

of a negative determination or de 

minimis margins, that the Department 

postpone the deadline for its final 

determination until a date not later than 

the 135th day after the date on which 

the Department will have published its 

notice of preliminary determination. 

Accordingly, because we have made 

an affirmative preliminary 

determination in this case, and the 

requesting parties account for a 

significant portion of exports of the 

subject merchandise, we are postponing 

the final determination until not later 

than 135 days after the date of the 

publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

Period of Investigation (‘‘POI’’) 

The POI is April 1, 2003, through 

March 31, 2004. This period 

corresponds to the four most recent 

fiscal quarters prior to the month of the 

filing of the petition, i.e., June 2004. 

Scope of Investigation 

For purposes of this investigation, the 

products covered are all purified 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 

investigation is classified in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at subheading 

3912.31.00. This tariff classification is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes; however, the written 

description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all CMC 

produced and sold by the respondents 

in the Netherlands during the POI that 

fit the description in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ section of this notice to 

be foreign like products for purposes of 

determining appropriate product 

comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared 

U.S. sales to sales made in the home 

market or third country market, where 

appropriate. Where there were no sales 

of identical merchandise in the home 

market or third country market in the 

ordinary course of trade to compare to 

U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to 

sales of the most similar foreign like 

product made in the ordinary course of 

trade. Where there were no sales of 

identical or similar merchandise made 

in the ordinary course of trade, we made 

product comparisons using CV. 

In making the product comparisons, 

we matched to the foreign like product 

based on the physical characteristics 

reported by the respondents in the 

following order of importance: grade, 

viscosity, degree of substitution, particle 

size, and solution characteristics. 

On July, 29, 2004, the Department 

issued the antidumping questionnaire to 

both ANSC and Noviant, noting that 

Appendix V was not enclosed. The 

Department stated that it would serve 

all parties with a copy of the proposed 

model match criteria in the near future. 

The Department also noted that there 

would be a period of comment and 

review before the Department issued the 

final model match hierarchy to all 

parties. On July 30, 2004, petitioner 

submitted its proposed model match 

criteria. Petitioner listed the criteria in 

descending order of importance: grade 

level, viscosity, degree of substitution, 

particle size, and solution 

characteristics, and provided sub-fields 

for each criterion. 

On August 9, 2004, Noviant submitted 

comments regarding petitioner’s July 30, 

2004, proposed model match criteria. 

Noviant had no objection to the basic 

structure of the proposed model match 

nor with the ranking of the product 

characteristics. However, Noviant 

proposed adding sub-fields to grade and 

viscosity, while refining the definitions 

of degree of substitution, particle size, 

and solution characteristics. On August 

11, 2004, petitioner commented on 

Noviant’s August 9, 2004, comments, 

agreeing that the addition of one subfield for oil drilling, and an extra 

viscosity range to reflect more 

meaningful distinctions was justified, 

while rebutting Noviant’s breakout of 

production and sales variables. 

On August 18, 2004, the Department 

issued a draft questionnaire Appendix V 

for model match criteria to all interested 

parties. On August 19, 2004, petitioner 

filed comments on the Department’s 

draft model match criteria. Petitioner 

stated that it agreed with the 

Department in almost all respects with 

the exception of two typographical 

errors. On August 25, 2004, Noviant 

filed comments to the Department’s 

draft model match criteria and 

petitioner’s August 19, 2004, comments 

thereto. Noviant argued that the model 

match criteria proposed by the 

Department did not ensure accurate 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 77207

comparisons of products or prices. After 

soliciting further comments from both 

interested parties on August 30, 2004, 

the Department issued its final 

questionnaire Appendix V model match 

criteria. See Letter to All Interested 

Parties from Robert James, Program 

Manager, dated August 30, 2004. The 

Department added sub-fields for some 

criteria and adjusted ranges for others in 

its final Appendix V, taking into 

account all comments submitted on 

behalf of both parties prior to making 

the final determination. 

Date of Sale 

Section 351.401(i) of the Department’s 

regulations states that the Department 

will normally 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. However, 

the Department may use a date other 

than the date of invoice if the alternative 

better reflects the date on which the 

material terms of sale (e.g., price and 

quantity) are established.

Noviant 

For both third country market and 

U.S. sales, Noviant reported the date of 

invoice as the date of sale, in keeping 

with the Department’s stated preference 

for using the invoice date as the date of 

sale. Noviant stated that invoicing is 

coincident with shipment, and therefore 

shipment date and invoice date are 

identical and are also the date of sale. 

The Department is preliminarily using 

the invoice date as the date of sale for 

both third-country market and U.S. 

sales. We intend to examine this issue 

at verification, and will incorporate our 

findings in our analysis for the final 

determination, if we determine that 

order confirmation, or another date 

other than invoice date, is the 

appropriate date of sale. 

ANSC 

ANSC reported the date of invoice as 

the date of sale for both home and U.S. 

markets, reflecting the Department’s 

stated preference. ANSC reported that 

the invoice date is indicative of the date 

on which material terms of sale are 

established and that it is possible for the 

quantity, price, or other terms of sale to 

be modified between order date and 

invoice date. 

The Department is preliminarily using 

the invoice date as the date of sale for 

home market sales and all U.S. sales 

with the exception of those sales that 

occurred within distribution channel 2. 

For sales in U.S. market channel 2, 

ANSC stated that the invoice is 

generated after the shipment date. See 

also ANSC’s October 25, 2004, 

supplemental questionnaire response at 

6. In keeping with the Department’s 

preferred practice, we have used the 

date of shipment as the date of sale for 

U.S. market channel 2 sales. For all 

other sales, we used the invoice date as 

the date of sale. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of 

purified CMC from the Netherlands to 

the United States were made at LTFV, 

we compared the export price (‘‘EP’’) or 

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) to NV, 

as described in the ‘‘Export Price and 

Constructed Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal 

Value’’ sections of this notice. In 

accordance with section 

777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we 

compared POI weighted-average EPs 

and CEPs to NVs, and where there were 

no similar product matches, we 

compared EP or CEP to CV. 

As discussed below under ‘‘Home 

Market Viability and Comparison 

Market Selection,’’ we determined that 

ANSC had a viable home market during 

the POI. However, Noviant did not have 

a viable home market. Therefore, the 

Department used third country sales 

from Taiwan for NV. See discussion 

below. 

Export Price and Constructed Export 

Price 

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 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 

subsection 772(c) of the Act. 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 subsections (c) and (d). 

1. ANSC 

During the POI, ANSC made direct 

sales to unaffiliated customers in the 

United States and sales through its 

affiliate, Akzo Nobel Inc. (‘‘AN–US’’). 

After reviewing the evidence on the 

record of this investigation, we have 

preliminarily determined that ANSC’s 

transactions through its affiliate are 

classified properly as CEP sales because 

these sales occurred in the United States 

and were made through its U.S. 

affiliate(s) to an unaffiliated buyer. Such 

a determination is consistent with 

section 772(b) of the Act and the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit’s decision in AK Steel Corp. et 

al v. United States, 226 F.3d 1361, 1374 

(Fed. Cir. 2000) (‘‘AK Steel’’). 

Export Price 

We used EP methodology, in 

accordance with section 772(a) of the 

Act, for sales that were produced and 

exported by ANSC from the Netherlands 

to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 

United States prior to importation. We 

based EP on the packed price to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. In accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made 

deductions for movement expenses, 

where appropriate, for foreign inland 

freight from the plant to distribution 

warehouse, warehousing, foreign inland 

freight from plant/warehouse to the port 

of exportation, foreign inland insurance, 

foreign brokerage and handling, U.S. 

brokerage and handling, international 

freight, and U.S. inland freight from port 

to warehouse. In addition, we deducted 

billing adjustments and discounts from 

EP, where appropriate. 

Constructed Export Price 

For sales of merchandise produced by 

ANSC and sold by AN–US to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States, we calculated CEP in accordance 

with section 772(c) of the Act. We based 

CEP on the packed duty paid prices to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. We made adjustments to the 

starting price (gross unit price) for 

billing adjustments. In accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we 

deducted the following movement 

expenses, where appropriate, from the 

starting price: foreign inland freight 

from the plant to distribution 

warehouse, warehousing, foreign inland 

freight from plant/warehouse to the port 

of exportation, foreign inland insurance, 

foreign brokerage and handling, U.S. 

brokerage and handling, international 

freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland 

freight from port to warehouse, U.S. 

warehousing expense, other U.S. 

transportation expenses, and U.S. 

customs duty. See also 19 CFR 

351.401(e). Pursuant to section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act, we deducted from the 

starting price selling expenses 

associated with economic activities that 

occurred in the United States during the 

POI, including direct U.S. selling 

expenses (i.e., imputed credit expenses), 

U.S. inventory carrying costs, and other 

indirect selling expenses. Pursuant to 

section 772(d)(3) of the Act, where 

77208 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 

applicable, we made an adjustment for 

CEP profit. 

2. Noviant 

Based on a review of evidence on the 

record, Noviant made direct sales to 

unaffiliated customers in the United 

States and sales through its U.S. 

affiliates, Noviant Inc. and Huber 

Engineered Materials (‘‘HEM’’). After 

reviewing the evidence on the record of 

this investigation, we have preliminarily 

determined that Noviant’s transactions 

through its affiliates are classified 

properly as CEP sales because these 

sales occurred in the United States and 

were made through its U.S. affiliate(s) to 

an unaffiliated buyer. Such a 

determination is consistent with 

sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, 

respectively, and the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s 

decision in AK Steel. 

Export Price 

We used EP methodology, in 

accordance with section 772(a) of the 

Act, for sales that were produced and 

exported by Noviant from the 

Netherlands to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States prior to 

importation. We based EP on the packed 

price to unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States. In accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made 

deductions, where appropriate, for 

movement expenses including foreign 

inland freight from the plant to the port 

of exportation, U.S. brokerage and 

handling expenses, and marine 

insurance.

Constructed Export Price 

For sales of merchandise produced by 

Noviant and sold by Noviant Inc. and 

HEM to unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States, we calculated CEP in 

accordance with section 772(c) of the 

Act. We based CEP on the packed duty 

paid prices to unaffiliated purchasers in 

the United States. We made adjustments 

to the starting price (gross unit price) for 

billing adjustments, rebates, and freight 

revenue. In accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we deducted the 

following movement expenses, where 

appropriate, from the starting price: 

foreign inland freight from the plant to 

the port of exportation, foreign inland 

insurance, foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses, international freight, 

marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and 

handling expenses, U.S. customs duties, 

U.S. warehousing expenses, and U.S. 

inland freight from warehouse to 

unaffiliated customers. See also 19 CFR 

351.401(e). Pursuant to section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act, we deducted from the 

starting price selling expenses 

associated with economic activities that 

occurred in the United States during the 

POI, including direct U.S. selling 

expenses (i.e., imputed credit expenses), 

U.S. inventory carrying costs, and other 

indirect selling expenses. Pursuant to 

section 772(d)(3) of the Act, where 

applicable, we made an adjustment for 

CEP profit. 

Noviant reported the short-term 

interest rate for loans extended to its 

U.S. affiliates, Noviant Inc. and HEM, by 

an affiliated lender, JMH Finance Corp. 

(‘‘JMHF’’), and by an unaffiliated lender, 

respectively. See Noviant’s second 

supplemental questionnaire response 

(‘‘SSQR’’) dated November 24, 2004, at 

22 and Exhibit C–35. We note that 

Noviant Inc.’s reported short-term dollar 

interest rate for loans from its affiliate, 

JMHF, is significantly lower than HEM’s 

borrowing rate from an unaffiliated 

lender. Therefore, we preliminarily 

determine that Noviant Inc.’s reported 

short-term dollar interest rate is not at 

arm’s length. Accordingly, we used 

HEM’s interest rate for short-term 

borrowings from an unaffiliated lender 

during the POI to calculate Noviant 

Inc.’s imputed credit expenses and 

inventory carrying costs on CEP sales. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability and 

Comparison Market Selection 

In order 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 

respondent’s volume of home market 

sales of the foreign like product to the 

volume of U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. 

Section 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act 

provides that the Department may 

determine that home market sales are 

inappropriate as a basis for determining 

NV if the particular market situation 

would not permit a proper comparison. 

When sales in the home market are not 

viable, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act 

provides that sales to a particular third 

country market may be utilized if (I) the 

prices in such market are representative; 

(II) the aggregate quantity of the foreign 

like product sold by the producer or 

exporter in the third country market is 

five percent or more of the aggregate 

quantity of the subject merchandise sold 

in or to the United States; and (III) the 

Department does not determine that a 

particular market situation in the third 

country market prevents a proper 

comparison with the U.S. price.

In this investigation, we determined 

that ANSC’s aggregate volume of home 

market sales of the foreign like product 

was greater than five percent of the 

aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the 

subject merchandise. Therefore, for 

ANSC, we used home market sales as 

the basis for NV in accordance with 

section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. 

However, we determined that 

Noviant’s aggregate volume of home 

market sales of the foreign like product 

was not greater than five percent of the 

aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise. Therefore, we relied on 

sales to a third country as the basis for 

NV in accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. The following 

is a description of the Department’s 

procedure in selecting the third country 

sales used to calculate NV for sales of 

the foreign like product made by 

Noviant. 

On September 9, 2004, Noviant 

reported in its section A questionnaire 

response that its home market sales of 

the foreign like product were less than 

five percent of the aggregate quantity of 

its sales to the United States. Therefore, 

we determined that Noviant’s sales in 

the home market did not provide a 

viable basis for calculating NV. 

In its section A response, Noviant 

asserted that Mexico was the most 

appropriate third country market for 

purposes of determining NV, because of 

the comparability of merchandise, 

similarities in channels of distribution 

and levels of trade, and concentration of 

sales. On September 15, 2004, petitioner 

argued that the information provided by 

Noviant was not adequate for the 

Department to exercise its regulatory 

responsibility, set forth under section 

351.404(e) of the Department’s 

regulations, to determine the most 

appropriate third country market upon 

which to base NV. In addition, 

petitioner requested that the Department 

review Noviant’s sales of foreign like 

product for each of its three largest third 

country markets, i.e. Taiwan, Germany 

and Mexico, as reported in Noviant’s 

section A response. Upon review of the 

information provided by Noviant, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(c)(ii) 

of the Act, the Department selected 

Taiwan as the appropriate comparison 

market. The Department found that 

exports of the foreign like products to 

Taiwan were adequately similar to those 

exported to the United States, and that 

exports to Taiwan were substantially 

larger than exports either to Mexico or 

to Germany. In addition, the Department 

did not find any evidence on the record 

suggesting that Taiwan would be an 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 77209

1The marketing process in the United States and 

third country market begins with the producer and 

extends to the sale to the final user or customer. 

The chain of distribution between the two may have 

many or few links, and the respondents’ sales occur 

somewhere along this chain. In performing this 

evaluation, we considered each respondent’s 

narrative response to properly determine where in 

the chain of distribution the sale occurs.

inappropriate third country market to 

select as a comparison market. 

Accordingly, on September 16, 2004, 

the Department requested that Noviant 

report its sales of foreign like product 

sold to Taiwan during the POI. See 

Memorandum to the File from Angelica 

L. Mendoza, Noviant BV’s Section B 

Response (Third-Country Market), dated 

September 20, 2004. See also Third 

Country Market Memo. 

For Noviant, we also used CV as the 

basis for calculating NV, in accordance 

with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, for 

those sales that did not have identical 

or similar product matches. 

B. Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent 

practicable, we determine NV based on 

sales in the comparison market at the 

same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the EP or 

CEP transaction. See also section 

351.412 of the Department’s regulations. 

The NV LOT is the level of the startingprice sales in the comparison market or, 

when NV is based on CV, the level of 

the sales from which we derive selling, 

general and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) 

expenses and profits. For EP sales, the 

U.S. LOT is also the level of the startingprice sale, which is usually from the 

exporter to the importer. For CEP sales, 

the U.S. LOT is the level of the 

constructed sale from the exporter to the 

affiliated importer. See section 

351.412(c)(1) of the Department’s 

regulations. As noted in the ‘‘Export 

Price and Constructed Export Price’’

section above, we preliminarily find 

that all of Noviant’s and ANSC’s sales 

through their U.S. affiliates are 

appropriately classified as CEP sales, 

while all direct sales to unrelated 

customers are properly classified as EP 

sales. 

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. If the 

comparison market sales are at a 

different LOT than EP or CEP sales, and 

the difference affects price 

comparability, as manifested in a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between 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 

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 Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes from 

Canada, 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 2002); 

see also Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from South 

Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 

19, 1997). 

In analyzing differences in selling 

functions, we determine whether the 

LOTs identified by the respondent are 

meaningful. See Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27371 (May 19, 1997). If the 

claimed LOTs are the same, we expect 

that the functions and activities of the 

seller should be similar. Conversely, if 

a party claims that LOTs are different 

for different groups of sales, the 

functions and activities of the seller 

should be dissimilar. See Porcelain-onSteel Cookware from Mexico: Final 

Results of Administrative Review, 65 FR 

30068 (May 10, 2000). 

In order to determine whether the 

comparison market sales were at 

different stages in the marketing process 

than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the 

distribution system in each market (i.e., 

the ‘‘chain of distribution’’),1 including 

selling functions, class of customer 

(‘‘customer category’’), and the level of 

selling expenses for each type of sale.

Noviant 

In this investigation, we obtained 

information from Noviant regarding the 

marketing stages involved in sales to the 

reported third country and U.S. markets. 

Noviant reported that it sells to 

unaffiliated distributors and end users 

in the third country market (i.e., 

Taiwan), and to U.S. affiliates, Noviant 

Inc. and HEM, in the United States, and 

directly to unaffiliated U.S. customers. 

Noviant reported one LOT in the third 

country market, Taiwan, with one 

channel of distribution to two classes of 

customers: (1) Direct sales from the 

plant to end users, and (2) direct sales 

from the plant to distributors. In 

reviewing Noviant’s questionnaire 

responses, we preliminarily find that 

Noviant, in fact, had the following two 

channels of distribution in Taiwan: (1) 

Direct sales from the plant to end users 

and distributors, and (2) sales from 

warehouse to distributors. Specifically, 

in its supplemental questionnaire 

response dated October 27, 2004 

(‘‘SQR’’), Noviant stated that for its sales 

to distributors in Taiwan, it either 

produces to order or takes material from 

stock. See Noviant’s SQR at 7. Further, 

based on our review of evidence on the 

record, we find that third country 

market sales to both customer categories 

and through both channels of 

distribution were substantially similar 

with respect to selling functions and 

stages of marketing. For example, 

Noviant employed an affiliated selling 

agent to assist with negotiation, 

customer inquires, and to participate in 

industry trade shows in Asia, for which 

Noviant paid it a commission, for all 

sales to Taiwan. See Noviant’s SQR at 

4–5 and 7–8. Noviant performed the 

same selling functions for sales in both 

third country market channels of 

distribution, including sales forecasting, 

order input/processing, advertising, 

warranty service, freight and delivery 

services, etc. See Noviant’s section A 

questionnaire response dated September 

9, 2004, (‘‘AQR’’) at Exhibit A–5. 

Accordingly, we preliminarily find that 

Noviant had only one LOT for its third 

country market sales. 

Noviant reported one EP LOT and one 

CEP LOT each with one channel of 

distribution in the United States, and 

with two classes of customers for CEP 

sales: (1) Direct sales to end users of 

merchandise produced to order, and (2) 

sales through U.S. affiliates to end users 

and distributors of merchandise 

produced to order. However, in 

reviewing Noviant’s questionnaire 

responses, we preliminarily find that 

there are two additional channels of 

distribution for U.S. sales, i.e., (1) 

Noviant made direct sales to end users 

from inventory, and (2) Noviant Inc. and 

HEM sold purified CMC from 

warehouse stock maintained by each 

company to unaffiliated end users and 

distributors (the latter by Noviant Inc. 

only). Therefore, we preliminarily find 

that there are two channels of 

distribution for EP sales, and two 

channels of distribution for CEP sales. 

See Noviant’s AQR at A–21–A–26.

We reviewed the selling functions and 

services performed by Noviant in the 

U.S. market for EP sales, as described by 

Noviant in its questionnaire responses. 

We find that the selling functions and 

services performed by Noviant on direct 

sales for both U.S. channels of 

distribution relating to the EP LOT (i.e., 

sales of merchandise produced to order 

to unaffiliated end users and sales of 

merchandise from stock to unaffiliated 

end users) are similar. In particular, for 

sales produced to order and pulled from 

stock, Noviant’s customer care 

personnel process all orders and its 

77210 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 

logistics department arranges for freight 

and delivery to Noviant’s unaffiliated 

U.S. customers. See Noviant’s AQR at 

A–27–A–28. Accordingly, because these 

selling functions are substantially 

similar for these two channels of 

distribution, we preliminarily determine 

that there is one EP LOT in the U.S. 

market. 

For CEP sales, we consider only the 

selling activities reflected in the price 

after the deduction of expenses and CEP 

profit under section 772(d) of the Act. 

See Micron Technology Inc. v. United 

States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314–1315 (Fed. 

Cir. 2001). We reviewed the selling 

functions and services performed by 

Noviant on CEP sales for both channels 

of distribution relating to the CEP LOT, 

as described by Noviant in its 

questionnaire responses, after these 

deductions. We have determined that 

the selling functions performed by 

Noviant on all CEP sales are similar 

because Noviant provides almost no 

selling functions to either U.S. affiliate 

in support of either channel of 

distribution. Noviant reported that the 

only services it provided for the CEP 

sales were packaging, order input/

processing services, and very limited 

freight and delivery and sales/marketing 

support services. See Noviant’s SQR at 

Exhibit A–19. Accordingly, because the 

selling functions provided by Noviant 

on sales to affiliates in the United States 

are substantially similar, we 

preliminarily determine that there is 

one CEP LOT in the U.S. market. 

We then examined the selling 

functions performed by Noviant on its 

EP sales in comparison with the selling 

functions performed on CEP sales (after 

deductions). We found that Noviant 

performs an additional layer of selling 

functions on its direct sales to 

unaffiliated U.S. customers which are 

not performed on its sales to affiliates 

(e.g., sales forecasting, strategic/

economic planning, advertising, sales 

promotion, inventory maintenance, 

market research, after-sales support 

services, etc.). See Noviant’s SQR at 

Exhibit A–19. Because these additional 

selling functions are significant, we find 

that Noviant’s direct sales to unaffiliated 

U.S. customers (EP sales) are at a 

different LOT than its CEP sales. 

Next, we examined the third country 

market and EP sales. Noviant’s third 

country market and EP sales were both 

made to end users and distributors. In 

both cases, the selling functions 

performed by Noviant were almost 

identical for both markets. Other than 

commissions, which were only paid to 

selling agents for third country sales, 

and re-packing services, which were 

mainly provided on U.S. sales, in both 

markets Noviant provided the following 

services: strategic and economic 

planning, sales forecasting, sales 

promotion, procurement/sourcing 

services, order/input processing, 

technical assistance, provide after-sales 

services, etc. See Noviant’s SQR at 

Exhibit A–19. Because the selling 

functions and channels of distribution 

are substantially similar, we 

preliminarily determine that the third 

country market LOT is the same as the 

EP LOT. It was therefore unnecessary to 

make an LOT adjustment for 

comparison of third country market and 

EP prices. 

According to section 773(a)(7)(B) of 

the Act, a CEP offset is appropriate 

when the LOT in the home market or 

third country market is at a more 

advanced stage than the LOT of the CEP 

sales. Noviant reported that it provided 

minimal selling functions and services 

for the CEP LOT and that, therefore, the 

third country market LOT is more 

advanced than the CEP LOT. Based on 

our analysis of the channels of 

distribution and selling functions 

performed by Noviant for sales in the 

third country market and CEP sales in 

the U.S. market (i.e., sales support and 

activities provided by Noviant on sales 

to its U.S. affiliates), we preliminarily 

find that the third country market LOT 

is at a more advanced stage of 

distribution when compared to CEP 

sales because Noviant provides many 

selling functions in the third country 

market at a higher level of service (i.e., 

sales forecasting, strategic/economic 

planning, sales promotion, inventory 

maintenance, direct sales personnel, 

market research, technical assistance, 

etc.) as compared to selling functions 

performed for its CEP sales (i.e., very 

limited freight and delivery, sales 

forecasting, and inventory maintenance 

services). See Noviant’s SQR at Exhibit 

A–19. Thus, we find that Noviant’s third 

country market sales are at a more 

advanced LOT than its CEP sales. There 

was only one LOT in the third country 

market, there was no data available to 

determine the existence of a pattern of 

price differences, and we do not have 

any other information that provides an 

appropriate basis for determining a LOT 

adjustment. Therefore, we applied a 

CEP offset to NV for CEP comparisons. 

To calculate the CEP offset, we 

deducted the third country market 

indirect selling expenses from NV for 

third country market sales that were 

compared to U.S. CEP sales. As such, 

we limited the third country market 

indirect selling expense deduction by 

the amount of the indirect selling 

expenses deducted in calculating the 

CEP as required under section 

772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.

ANSC 

In this investigation, we obtained 

information from ANSC regarding the 

marketing stages involved in sales to the 

reported home and U.S. markets. ANSC 

reported that it sells to unaffiliated 

distributors and end users in the home 

market (i.e., the Netherlands), and to a 

U.S. affiliate, AN–US, in the United 

States, and directly to unaffiliated U.S. 

customers. 

ANSC reported one LOT in the home 

market, the Netherlands, with one 

channel of distribution to two classes of 

customers: (1) Direct sales from the 

plant to end users, and (2) direct sales 

from the plant to distributors. See

ANSC’s section A questionnaire 

response dated September 3, 2004 

(‘‘ANSC’s AQR’’) at Appendix 7A. 

Based on our review of evidence on the 

record, we find that home market sales 

to both customer categories were 

substantially similar with respect to 

selling functions and stages of 

marketing. ANSC performed the same 

selling functions at the same level for 

sales to both home market customer 

categories, including sales forecasting, 

strategic planning, packing, 

warehousing, inventory management, 

order processing, freight and delivery 

arrangements, etc. See ANSC’s AQR at 

Appendix 7A. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily find that ANSC had only 

one LOT for its home market sales. 

ANSC reported one EP LOT and one 

CEP LOT with three total channels of 

distribution in the United States: (1) 

Direct sales to end users and 

distributors, (2) direct sales by the U.S. 

affiliate to end users and distributors 

using existing inventory in the United 

States, and (3) direct sales by the U.S. 

affiliate to end users and distributors 

with merchandise shipped directly from 

the Netherlands. See ANSC’s AQR at A–

16. 

We reviewed the selling functions and 

services performed by ANSC in the U.S. 

market for EP sales, as described by 

ANSC in its questionnaire responses. 

We find that the selling functions and 

services performed by ANSC on direct 

sales for both U.S. channels of 

distribution relating to the EP LOT (i.e., 

sales of merchandise produced to order 

to unaffiliated end users or distributors 

and sales of merchandise from stock to 

unaffiliated end users and distributors) 

are similar. In particular, for both U.S. 

channels of distribution, ANSC 

provided similar levels of service with 

respect to sales forecasting, strategic 

planning, packing, warehousing, 

inventory management, order 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 77211

processing, freight and delivery 

arrangements, etc. See ANSC’s AQR at 

Appendix 7A. Accordingly, because 

these selling functions are substantially 

similar for these two channels of 

distribution, we preliminarily determine 

that there is one EP LOT in the U.S. 

market. 

For CEP sales, we consider only the 

selling activities reflected in the price 

after the deduction of expenses and CEP 

profit under section 772(d) of the Act. 

See Micron Technology Inc. v. United 

States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314–1315 (Fed. 

Cir. 2001). We reviewed the selling 

functions and services performed by 

ANSC on CEP sales, as described by 

ANSC in its questionnaire responses, 

after these deductions. We have 

determined that the selling functions 

performed by ANSC on all CEP sales 

were identical. In particular, ANSC 

performed the following services for 

both CEP channels of distribution: 

strategic planning, packing, 

warehousing, inventory management, 

order processing, technical assistance, 

etc. See ANSC’s AQR at Appendix 7A. 

Accordingly, because the selling 

functions provided by ANSC on all sales 

to its affiliate in the United States are 

identical, we preliminarily determine 

that there is one CEP LOT in the U.S. 

market. 

We then examined the selling 

functions performed by ANSC on its EP 

sales in comparison with the selling 

functions performed on CEP sales (after 

deductions). We found that ANSC 

performs an additional layer of selling 

functions on its direct sales to 

unaffiliated U.S. customers, which are 

not performed on its sales to its affiliate 

(e.g., sales forecasting, warehousing, 

inventory maintenance, direct sales 

staff, market research, technical 

assistance, after-sales support services, 

etc.). See ANSC’s AQR at Appendix 7A. 

Because these additional selling 

functions are significant, we find that 

ANSC’s direct sales to unaffiliated U.S. 

customers (EP sales) are at a different 

LOT than its CEP sales. 

Next, we compared the home market 

and EP sales. ANSC’s home market sales 

and EP sales were both made to end 

users and distributors. The selling 

functions performed by ANSC were 

identical for both markets, with the 

limited exceptions of advertising and 

distributor training. In both markets, 

ANSC provided the following services: 

sales forecasting, strategic planning, 

packing, warehousing, inventory 

management, order processing, direct 

sales crew, market research, technical 

assistance, sales/marketing support, 

provide guarantees, provide after-sales 

service, provide freight and delivery, 

and invoicing. See ANSC’s AQR at 

Appendix 7A. Because the selling 

functions and channels of distribution 

are substantially similar, we 

preliminarily determine that the home 

market LOT is the same as the EP LOT. 

It was therefore unnecessary to make a 

LOT adjustment for comparison of home 

market and EP prices. 

According to section 773(a)(7)(B) of 

the Act, a CEP offset is appropriate 

when the LOT in the home market or 

third country market is at a more 

advanced stage than the LOT of the CEP 

sales. ANSC reported that it provided 

minimal selling functions and services 

for the CEP LOT and that, therefore, the 

home market LOT is more advanced 

than the CEP LOT. Based on our 

analysis of the channels of distribution 

and selling functions performed by 

ANSC for sales in the home market and 

CEP sales in the U.S. market (i.e., sales 

support and activities provided by 

ANSC on sales to its U.S. affiliate), we 

preliminarily find that the home market 

LOT is at a more advanced stage of 

distribution when compared to CEP 

sales because ANSC provides many 

selling functions in the home market at 

a higher level of service (i.e., sales 

forecasting, strategic/economic 

planning, sales promotion, inventory 

maintenance, invoicing, market 

research, technical assistance, etc.) as 

compared to selling functions 

performed for its CEP sales (i.e., very 

limited sales forecasting, warehousing, 

inventory maintenance services, 

technical assistance, etc.). See ANSC’s 

AQR at Appendix 7A. Thus, we find 

that ANSC’s home market sales are at a 

more advanced LOT than its CEP sales. 

There was only one LOT in the home 

market, there was no data available to 

determine the existence of a pattern of 

price differences, and we do not have 

any other information that provides an 

appropriate basis for determining a LOT 

adjustment. Therefore, we applied a 

CEP offset to NV for CEP comparisons. 

To calculate the CEP offset, we 

deducted the home market indirect 

selling expenses from NV for home 

market sales that were compared to U.S. 

CEP sales. As such, we limited the home 

market indirect selling expense 

deduction by the amount of the indirect 

selling expenses deducted in calculating 

the CEP as required under section 

772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. 

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

ANSC 

We calculated ANSC’s NV based on 

delivered prices to unaffiliated 

customers. We made deductions for 

movement expenses, including inland 

freight from plant to distribution 

warehouse, warehousing, inland freight 

from plant/warehouse to customer and 

inland insurance. In addition, we made 

adjustments under section 

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and section 

351.410 of the Department’s regulations 

for differences in circumstances of sale 

for discounts and rebates and other 

direct selling expenses. We also 

deducted home market packing costs 

and added U.S. packing costs to the 

starting price in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

Furthermore, we made an adjustment 

for differences in costs attributable to 

differences in the physical 

characteristics of the merchandise in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 

of the Act and section 351.411 of the 

Department’s regulations. We also 

deducted third country packing costs 

and added U.S. packing costs in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) 

and (B) of the Act. 

Noviant 

For Noviant’s sales of the foreign like 

product, we calculated NV based on 

cost insurance and freight (‘‘CIF’’) prices 

to unaffiliated customers in the third 

country market. We made deductions, 

where appropriate, from the starting 

price for movement expenses, including 

inland freight, international freight, and 

marine insurance, under section 

773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, 

we made adjustments under section 

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.410 for differences in circumstances 

of sale for imputed credit expenses. We 

also made an adjustment to NV to 

account for commissions paid in the 

third country (i.e., Taiwan) but not in 

the U.S. market, in accordance with 

section 351.410(e) of our regulations. As 

the offset for third country 

commissions, we applied the lesser of 

third country commissions or U.S. 

indirect selling expenses. 

Furthermore, we made an adjustment 

for differences in costs attributable to 

differences in the physical 

characteristics of the merchandise in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 

of the Act and section 351.411 of our 

regulations. We also deducted third 

country packing costs and added U.S. 

packing costs in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

Noviant reported that, during the POI, 

it paid an affiliated selling agent, 

Noviant Pte., commissions for their 

handling of all purified CMC sales in 

Taiwan. See Noviant’s section B 

response dated September 27, 2004, at 

B–24–B25. During the course of this 

proceeding, the Department requested 

77212 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 

2A public version of this document is on file in 

the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), room B–099 of 

the Herbert C. Hoover Department of Commerce building, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC.

that Noviant provide evidence for the 

record showing that these transactions 

were made at arm’s-length. With respect 

to commissions paid for sales of 

purified CMC made in the third country 

market, Noviant reported commissions 

paid to its affiliated selling agent and 

the actual selling expenses incurred by 

Noviant Pte. In order to determine 

whether the commissions paid by 

Noviant to its affiliate were arm’s-length 

transactions, we compared the 

commissions paid to the affiliated 

selling agents to those paid by Noviant 

to an unaffiliated selling agent on sales 

of purified CMC in Taiwan. We 

preliminarily find that Noviant has not 

sufficiently demonstrated that the 

reported commissions it paid to its 

affiliated selling agent were made at 

arm’s-length. Therefore, we did not 

make adjustments for commissions paid 

to Noviant Pte. on sales of purified CMC 

in Taiwan. Instead, we adjusted the 

starting price for the actual selling 

expenses incurred by Noviant Pte. 

related to Taiwanese sales of purified 

CMC produced by Noviant. 

In its section A questionnaire 

response, Noviant explained that all of 

its short-term borrowings from its 

affiliated lender, JMHF, have to be 

conducted on a fully arm’s-length basis 

as this is a criterion for International 

Financial Service Center (‘‘IFSC’’) 

status. See Noviant’s AQR at A–15–A–

16. Noviant stated that independent 

auditors must certify annually to 

JMHF’s IFSC status as required by Irish 

law. See Noviant’s AQR at Exhibit A–4. 

In its second supplemental 

questionnaire, the Department requested 

that Noviant provide evidence in 

support of its assertion that the shortterm borrowing rates offered by JMHF 

were made at arm’s-length. See 

November 10, 2004, letter to Noviant BV 

from Abdelali Elouaradia, Program 

Manager.2 In its response to the 

Department’s request, Noviant reiterated 

that the lending rates applicable to loans 

extended by JMHF were at arm’s-length 

rates pursuant to Irish law. See

Noviant’s SSQR dated November 24, 

2004, at 26 and Exhibit A–27. Because 

Noviant did not submit any data to 

support its arm’s-length claim, in 

accordance with our practice, we have 

not assumed that they are arm’s-length 

transactions. See Industrial Phosphoric 

Acid From Belgium; Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 64 FR 24574 (May 7, 1999). 

Therefore, we have disregarded the 

third country market credit expenses 

and inventory costs reported by 

Noviant. Instead, we utilized the 

weighted-average short-term dollar 

commercial and industrial lending rate 

based on loans made by all commercial 

banks during the POI reported by the 

Federal Reserve in calculating Noviant’s 

imputed credit expenses on third 

country market sales denominated in 

U.S. dollars. See Import Administration 

Policy Bulletin 98–2. In calculating 

Noviant’s credit expenses and inventory 

carrying costs on third country market 

sales denominated in Euros, we utilized 

the weighted-average short-term Euro 

monetary financial institution lending 

rate from the European Central Bank 

(‘‘ECB’’) based on loans extended to 

non-financial corporations during the 

POI. Because Noviant’s manufacturing 

costs are incurred in Euros, we used the 

ECB weighted-average short-term Euro 

lending rate to calculate Noviant’s 

inventory carrying costs for its third 

country market sales.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Constructed Value 

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) 

of the Act, we based Noviant’s NV on 

CV where there were no comparable 

sales in the third country market made 

in the ordinary course of trade. In 

accordance with section 773(e) of the 

Act, we calculated CV based on the sum 

of Noviant’s cost of materials and 

fabrication for the foreign like product, 

plus amounts for SG&A, profit, and U.S. 

packing costs. We calculated the cost of 

materials and fabrication and interest 

based on the methodology based on the 

CV information provided by Noviant in 

its section D response. We have 

recalculated Noviant’s general and 

administrative (‘‘G&A’’) expense ratio 

based on G&A expenses for the year 

ended December 31, 2003, incurred by 

Noviant only and not those of the 

Noviant Group. In doing so, we have 

deducted rental and sundry income 

from Noviant’s total reported G&A 

expenses. We also added sundry 

expenses to our calculation of the G&A 

expense ratio. See Memorandum to Neal 

Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, 

Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Determination—Noviant 

BV, dated December 16, 2004 (‘‘COP/CV 

Memo’’). 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act based on 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) of the 

Act, we will verify the information 

relied upon in making our final 

determination. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) 

of the Act, we are directing U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to suspend liquidation of all imports of 

subject merchandise 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 instruct CBP to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond equal to the weighted-average 

amount by which NV exceeds EP or 

CEP, 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:

Manufacturer/exporter POI 

Weightedaverage 

margin

(percent) 

Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry ........................................................................................................................... 04/01/03–03/31/04 12.04 

Noviant BV ........................................................................................................................................................... 04/01/03–03/31/04 27.11 

All Others ............................................................................................................................................................. 04/01/03–03/31/04 22.21 

See Memoranda to the File, Preliminary 

Determination Analysis for ANSC and 

Noviant, respectively, dated December 16, 2004. Public versions of our analysis 

memoranda are on file in the CRU. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 77213

1Section A of the questionnaire requests general 

information concerning a company’s corporate 

structure and business practices, the merchandise 

under investigation, and the manner in which it 

sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section 

B requests a complete listing of all of the company’s 

home market sales of foreign like product or, if the 

home market is not viable, of sales of the foreign 

like product in the most appropriate third-country 

market (this section is not applicable to respondents 

in non-market economy cases). Section C requests 

a complete listing of the company’s U.S. sales of 

subject merchandise. Section D requests 

information on the cost of production of the foreign 

like product and the constructed value of the 

merchandise under investigation. Section E 

requests information on further manufacturing.

The ‘‘All Others’’ rate is derived 

exclusive of all de minimis margins and 

margins based entirely on facts 

available. See Memorandum to the File, 

Calculation of All Others Rate, dated 

December 16, 2004. A public version of 

this memorandum is on file in the CRU. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary affirmative determination. 

If our 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 

these imports are materially injuring, or 

threaten material injury to, the U.S. 

industry. Because we have postponed 

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 within 45 days of 

our final determination. 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties in this 

proceeding in accordance with section 

351.224(b) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs for this investigation must 

be submitted to the Department no later 

than seven days after the date of the 

final verification report is issued in this 

proceeding. Rebuttal briefs must be filed 

five days from the deadline date for case 

briefs. 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. Section 

774 of the Act provides that the 

Department will hold a public hearing 

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. If a 

request for a hearing is made in this 

investigation, the hearing will 

tentatively be held two days after the 

rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. Parties should 

confirm by telephone the time, date, and 

place of the hearing 48 hours before the 

scheduled time. 

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, 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. Oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. 

We will make our final determination 

no later than 135 days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

This determination is published 

pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i) of 

the Act.

Dated: December 16, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–28118 Filed 12–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–401–808] 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From 

Sweden

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) preliminarily 

determines that purified 

carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from 

Sweden is being sold, or is likely to be 

sold, in the United States at less than 

fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 

733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). The estimated 

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in 

the Suspension of Liquidation section of 

this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 27, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Helen M. Kramer at 202–482–0405 or 

Abdelali Elouaradia at 202–482–1374, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

Case History 

On June 9, 2004, the Department 

received a petition for the imposition of 

antidumping duties on purified CMC 

from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, 

and Sweden, filed in the proper form by 

Aqualon Company (Aqualon or 

petitioner), a division of Hercules 

Incorporated. See Letter from petitioner 

to Secretary Evans of the Department, 

‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties on Imports of 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) 

from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, 

and Sweden’’ (Petition). The 

Department initiated the antidumping 

investigations of purified CMC from 

Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and 

Sweden on June 29, 2004. See Notice of 

Initiation of Antidumping 

Investigations: Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from 

Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and 

Sweden, 69 FR 40617 (July 6, 2004) 

(Initiation Notice). Since the initiation 

of this investigation, the following 

events have occurred. 

On July 23, 2004, the International 

Trade Commission (the Commission) 

preliminarily determined that there is a 

reasonable indication that an industry 

in the United States is materially 

injured by reason of imports of purified 

CMC from Finland, Mexico, the 

Netherlands, and Sweden that are 

alleged to be sold in the United States 

at LTFV. See Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden, 

69 FR 45851 (July 30, 2004). 

On July 29, 2004, the Department 

issued Sections A, B, and C of the 

antidumping questionnaire 1 to Noviant 

CMC Oy of Finland, Quimica Amtex 

S.A. of Mexico, Noviant Holdings B.V. 

of the Netherlands, Akzo Nobel 

Specialty Chemicals of the Netherlands, 

and Noviant AB of Sweden.

On July 30, 2004, petitioner submitted 

suggested model match criteria. On 

August 3, 2004, John Drury, Mark 

Flessner, Robert James, and Brian Sheba 

of the Department traveled to 

petitioner’s Hopewell, Virginia 

production facility for a plant tour. See

Memorandum to The File from Robert 

James, Program Manager, ‘‘Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden; 

Tour of Aqualon’s Hopewell Plant’’

(August 5, 2004). 

On August 9, 2004, respondents 

Noviant OY (Finland), Noviant BV (the