[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77205-77213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28118]


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

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

[[Page 77206]]

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 off-white, 
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 sub-field 
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

[[Page 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

[[Page 77208]]

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

[[Page 77209]]

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 starting-price 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 starting-
price 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-to-Length 
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-on-Steel 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 77210]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 77212]]

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 short-term 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
         Manufacturer/exporter                   POI            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.

[[Page 77213]]

    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