Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 77201

Reserve Bank does not track or publish 

exchange rates for the Argentine Peso. 

Therefore, we made currency 

conversions based on the daily 

exchange rates from Factiva, a Dow 

Jones & Reuters Retrieval Service. 

Factiva publishes exchange rates for 

Monday through Friday only. We used 

the rate of exchange on the most recent 

Friday for conversion dates involving 

Saturday through Sunday where 

necessary. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine the following 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exist for the period December 1, 2002, 

through November 30, 2003:

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weighted-average margin 

(percentage) 

Asociacion de Cooperativas 

Argentinas ........................... 0 

Compania Apicola Argentina .. 0 

HoneyMax S.A. ....................... 0 

Nexco S.A. .............................. 0.38 

Nutrin S.A. .............................. 55.15 

Seylinco S.A. .......................... 0 

TransHoney S.A. .................... 0 

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). 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 or written 

comments no later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results of review. Rebuttal briefs and 

rebuttals to written comments, limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs and 

comments, may be filed no later than 35 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. 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, we would 

appreciate it if parties submitting case 

briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written 

comments would provide the 

Department with an additional copy of 

the public version of any such argument 

on diskette. The Department will issue 

final results of this administrative 

review, including the results of our 

analysis of the issues in any such case 

briefs, rebuttal briefs, and 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. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we 

calculated importer-specific ad valorem 

assessment rates for the merchandise 

based on the ratio of the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales made during the POR to 

the total customs value of the sales used 

to calculate those duties. This rate will 

be assessed uniformly on all entries of 

that particular importer made during the 

POR. The Department will issue 

appropriate appraisement instructions 

directly to CBP upon completion of the 

review. 

Furthermore, the following deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

completion of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of honey from Argentina 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 rates for all 

companies reviewed will be the rates 

established in the final results of review; 

(2) For any previously reviewed or 

investigated company not listed above, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the company-specific rate published in 

the most recent period; 

(3) If the exporter is not a firm 

covered in this review or the 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 

(4) 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 from the 

investigation (30.24 percent). See Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value; Honey From 

Argentina, 66 FR 50611 (Oct. 4, 2001), 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey 

From Argentina, 66 FR 58434 (Nov. 21, 

2001) (Final Determination), and Notice 

of Antidumping Duty Order; Honey 

From Argentina, 66 FR 63672 (Dec. 10, 

2001) (Notice of AD Order). 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: December 20, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–28220 Filed 12–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–834] 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From 

Mexico

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATES: December 27, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Flessner at (202) 482–6312 or 

Robert James at (202) 482–0649, AD/

CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, 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 carboxymethylcellulose 

(CMC) from Mexico 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. 

Case History 

On June 9, 2004, the Department of 

Commerce (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 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 investigation 

of purified CMC from Finland, Mexico, 

77202 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 

1Section A of the questionnaire requests 

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.

2Comments were also received from Noviant OY, 

Noviant BV, Noviant AB, and Noviant Inc., 

respondents in the companion investigations 

involving Finland, the Netherlands, and Sweden, 

on August 25, 2004.

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 

Caarboxymethylcellulose 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 Quimica 

Amtex S.A. de C.V. of Mexico (Amtex), 

noting that appendix V concerning 

model match criteria 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. We did so on August 18, 

2004.

Petitioner filed comments on the 

Department’s proposed model match 

criteria on August 19, 2004.2 The 

Department issued appendix V to the 

questionnaire on August 30, 2004.

On September 1, 2004, the 

Department received the section A 

questionnaire response from Amtex). 

Responses to sections B and C were 

received on September 22, 2004. 

On September 21, 2004, the 

Department issued a supplemental 

section A questionnaire. A response was 

received on September 29, 2004. 

On October 8, 2004, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire; 

this questionnaire contained a second 

set of questions concerning the section 

A response and a set of questions 

concerning the section B and C 

responses. Responses were received on 

October 21, 2004. 

On October 25, 2004, petitioner 

requested a 30-day postponement of the 

preliminary determination. In response 

to petitioner’s request and pursuant to 

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

October 28, 2004, the Department 

postponed the preliminary 

determination of the antidumping duty 

investigation on purified CMC from 

Mexico until not later than December 

16, 2004. See Postponement of 

Preliminary Determinations of 

Anitdumping Duty Investigations: 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands and 

Sweden, 69 FR 64030 (November 3, 

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 petitioner. 19 

CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests 

by exporters 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 23, 2004, amtex 

requested that, in the event of an 

affirmative preliminary determination 

in this investigation, the Department 

postpone its final determination until a 

date not later than 135 days after the 

date on which the Department publishes 

its notice of preliminary determination. 

amtex also included a request to extend 

the provisional measures by an 

additional 60 days. Such extension is 

permitted by section 733(d) of the Act. 

In addition, on November 19, 2004, 

petitioner requested that, in the event of 

a negative preliminary determination, 

the Department postpone the deadline 

for its final determination until a date 

not later than 135 days after the date on 

which the Department publishes its 

notice of preliminary determination. 

Accordingly, because we have made 

an affirmative preliminary 

determination in this case, the request 

for postponement was made by an 

exporter that accounts for a significant 

portion of exports of the subject 

merchandise, and there is no 

compelling reason to deny the 

respondent’s request, we are postponing 

the final determination until not later 

than 135 days after the date of 

publication of this notice and are 

extending the provisional measures six 

months.

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 power, comprising 

sodium carboxymethylcellulose 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 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 respondent in 

Mexico during the POI fitting the 

description in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigations’’ section of this notice to 

be foreign like product for purposes of 

determining appropriate product 

comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared 

U.S. sales to sales made in the home 

market. Where there were no sales of 

identical merchandise in the home 

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. 

In making the product comparisons, 

we matched foreign like products based 

on the physical characteristics reported 

by the respondent in the following order 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 77203

3 In addition, Amtex reported a subset of this 

channel of distribution for the local market in 

which a pro forma invoice was issued by Amtex’s 

wholly owned affiliate, Aquasol S.A. de C.V. 

(Aquasol), via a tolling arrangement; Aquasol has 

no production facility of its own and all functions 

of Aquasol are performed by Amtex personnel. This 

arrangement is a book-keeping expediency not 

rising to the level of a separate channel of 

distribution (see Amtex’s Section A Response, 

September 1, 2004, at Exhibits A–2 and A–3). 

Nothing indicates the two classes of customers, 

end-users and distributors, are different for Aquasol 

transactions; the only difference appears to be 

geographical. We conclude that this is not a 

different channel of distribution and its activities 

are included in the considerations below.

of importance: grade, viscosity, degree 

of substitution, particle size, and 

solution characteristics. Petitioner’s 

model match comments listed the 

criteria in descending order of 

importance: grade, viscosity, degree of 

substitution, particle size, and solution 

characteristics, and provided subfields 

for each criterion. Petitioner agreed that 

the addition of one subfield for oil 

drilling and an extra viscosity range to 

reflect more meaningful distinctions in 

the market was justified. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of 

purified CMC from Mexico to the 

United States were made at LTFV, we 

compared the export price (EP) to 

Normal Value (NV), as described in the 

‘‘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 

to NVs. 

As discussed below under ‘‘Home 

Market Viability and Comparison 

Market Selection,’’ we determined that 

Amtex had a viable home market during 

the POI. 

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. 

We used EP methodology for Amtex, 

in accordance with section 772(c) of the 

Act, because the subject merchandise 

was sold directly to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States before 

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 the distribution 

warehouse, warehousing, foreign inland 

freight from the 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 the port to the warehouse. 

In addition, we deducted billing 

adjustments and other discounts from 

EP, where appropriate. 

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. 

In this investigation, we determined 

Amtex’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, we 

used home market sales as the basis for 

NV in accordance with section 

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

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 

transaction. See also 19 CFR 351.412. 

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

For EP sales, the U.S. LOT is the level 

of the starting-price sale, which is 

usually from the exporter to the 

importer. 

To determine whether NV sales are at 

a different LOT than EP, we examine 

stages in the marketing process and 

selling functions along the chain of 

distribution between the producer and 

the unaffiliated customer. 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 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-on-Steel Cookware from 

Mexico: Final Results of Administrative 

Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000). If 

the NV transactions are at a different 

LOT than EP transactions, and the 

difference affects price comparability, as 

manifested in a pattern of consistent 

price differences between the sales on 

which NV is based and the U.S. sales at 

the LOT of the export transactions, we 

make an LOT adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 

In this investigation, we obtained 

information from Amtex regarding the 

marketing stages involved in its selling 

activities for its reported home market 

and U.S. sales, including a description 

of the selling activities performed by the 

respondent for each channel of 

distribution it claimed (see Amtex 

Section B & C Response, September 22, 

2004, at page C–15). 

Analysis 

Amtex provided a Selling Functions 

Chart (see Amtex’s Section A Response, 

September 1, 2004, at Exhibit A–14) in 

which there is a division between four 

categories: (1) Home market sales to 

end-users; (2) Home market sales to 

distributors; (3) U.S. sales to end-users; 

and (4) U.S. sales to distributors. None 

of the selling activity entries under any 

of these four categories are properly 

quantified; they are only reported as 

‘‘performed’’ or ‘‘not performed.’’ No 

distinctions such as ‘‘heavy’’ or 

‘‘medium’’ or ‘‘slight’’ are attributed to 

any function. Further, the Selling 

Functions Chart lists several functions 

as not being performed when the 

narrative descriptions would indicate 

otherwise. One example would be the 

selling activity ‘‘pay commissions,’’

which Amtex clearly states occurs in the 

home market (see Amtex’s Section B 

Response, September 22, 2004, at B–20). 

Another example would be the selling 

activity ‘‘order input/processing,’’

which Amtex states occurs in the U.S. 

market (see Amtex’s Section A 

Response, September 1, 2004, at A–12). 

Since these selling activities are not 

properly quantified or analyzed, the 

Department has no means of 

comparison. 

Level of Trade in the Home Market 

Amtex reported on LOT in the 

Mexican market with one channel of 

distribution to two classes of customers: 

(1) Direct sales from the mill to endusers, and (2) direct sales from the mill 

to distributors.3 Generally, Amtex 

77204 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 

claims a higher number of selling 

activities performed for sales to endusers than for sales to distributors. As 

discussed above, whoever, the selling 

functions are not properly quantified or 

analyzed in Amtex’s response. 

Therefore, based on our review of 

evidence on the record, we find home 

market sales to both customer categories 

were substantially similar with respect 

to selling functions and stages of 

marketing. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily find that Amtex had only 

one LOT for its home market sales.

Level of Trade in the U.S. Market 

We also reviewed the selling 

functions and services performed by 

Amtex in the U.S. market for EP sales. 

Amtex reported one LOT in the U.S. 

market with one channel of distribution 

to two classes of customers: (1) Direct 

sales from the mill to end-users, and (2) 

direct sales from the mill to distributors 

(see Amtex’s Section A Response, 

September 1, 2004, at Exhibit A–3). 

Amtex’s Selling Function Chart 

indicated the same three selling 

activities for both categories of sales: (1) 

Inventory Maintenance; (2) Warranty 

Services; and (3) Freight and Delivery. 

Therefore, there is no difference 

between these two classes of customers 

in the U.S. market. As with the home 

market sales, some functions are 

reported as not having any activity 

when the narrative descriptions would 

indicate otherwise; an example would 

be the selling activity ‘‘order input/

processing,’’ which Amtex states occurs 

in the U.S. market (see Amtex’s Section 

A Response, September 1, 2004, at A–

12). Also, as with the home market 

entries, Amtex did not quantify the 

extent to which it performs these 

functions. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine there is one EP 

LOT in the U.S. market.

Comparison of Levels of Trade Between 

Markets 

Amtex states that due to the smaller 

type of customer in the home market 

and the greater need of support there, 

there is greater activity in the home 

market (see Amtex’s Section A 

Response, September 1, 2004, at page 

A–9). We find the selling functions and 

services performed by Amtex on direct 

sales for the one U.S. channel of 

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

sales of merchandise produced to order 

for unaffiliated end-users or distributors 

and sales or merchandise from stock to 

unaffiliated end-users and distributors) 

have not been shown to be substantially 

different from those provided for home 

market sales. As discussed above, none 

of the selling activity entries are 

properly quantified, nor is the Selling 

Function Chart consistent with the 

narrative descriptions. Since the selling 

activities are not properly quantified or 

analyzed, the Department has no means 

of comparison. Therefore, we 

preliminarily determine the EP LOT is 

the same as the LOT in the home 

market. 

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Home Market Prices 

We calculated Amtex’s NV based on 

delivered prices to unaffiliated 

customers. We made deductions for 

movement expenses, including inland 

freight from the plant to the distribution 

warehouse, warehousing, inland freight 

from the plant/warehouse to the 

customer, and inland 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 direct selling 

expenses, including commissions and 

inventory carrying costs. 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 19 CFR 351.411. 

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, 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 

Weightedaverage 

margin

(percent) 

Quimica Amtex, S.A. de C.V. ... 12.18 

All Others .................................. 12.18 

See Memorandum to the File, 

‘‘Preliminary Determination Analysis 

for Amtex,’’ December 16, 2004. Public 

versions of our analysis memoranda are 

on file in the Central Records Unit 

(CRU), room B–099 of the Herbert C. 

Hoover Department of Commerce 

building, 14th Street and Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

Commission of our preliminary 

affirmative determination. If our final 

determination is affirmative, the 

Commission 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 Commission 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 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 

Public Comment 

Case briefs for this investigation must 

be submitted to the Department by the 

later of 30 days after publication of this 

preliminary determination or seven 

days after the date 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 

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