73042 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices 

2See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

and Preliminary Determination of Targeted 

Dumping, 75 FR 69403 (November 12, 2010) 

(‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

3See Aluminum Extrusions from the PRC: 

Request by Guang Ya Group for an Extension of the 

Final Determination (November 1, 2010). See also 

Preliminary Determination, finding that Guang Ya 

Group, Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., 

Ltd., Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding 

Limited and Karlton Aluminum Company Ltd., and 

Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd. 

should be considered a single entity for purposes 

of this investigation. 

4March 27, 2011, is 135 days after the date of the 

publication of the preliminary determination. 

However, because March 27, 2011, is a Sunday, we 

will postpone the due date to the next business day, 

Monday, March 28, 2011. 1C2H8O7P2 or C(CH3)(OH)(PO3H2)2. 

Determination in the Federal Register.2

The final determination of this 

antidumping duty investigation is 

currently due on January 10, 2011. 

Section 735(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 

1930 (‘‘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 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. In addition, 19 CFR 

351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by 

respondents for postponement of a final 

determination be accompanied by a 

request for extension of provisional 

measures from a four-month period to 

not more than six months. 

On November 1, 2010, Guang Ya 

Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd., Foshan 

Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd., Kong 

Ah International Company Limited, and 

Guang Ya Aluminium Industries (Hong 

Kong) Limited, (collectively, ‘‘Guang Ya 

Group’’), one of the entities comprising 

the sole active mandatory respondent in 

this investigation, requested an 

extension of the final determination and 

extension of the provisional measures.3

Thus, because the Preliminary 

Determination is affirmative, the 

respondent requesting extension of the 

final determination and extension of the 

provisional measures accounts for 

significant proportion of exports of the 

subject merchandise, and no compelling 

reasons for denial exist, we are 

extending the due date for the final 

determination in this investigation to no 

later than 135 days after the date of the 

publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

For the reasons identified above, we 

are postponing the final determination 

until March 28, 2011.4

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to sections 777(i) and 735(a)(2) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(g). 

Dated: November 15, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29874 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–847] 

1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 

1-Diphosphonic Acid From India: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a timely 

request by one manufacturer/exporter, 

Aquapharm Chemicals Pvt., Ltd. 

(Aquapharm), the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 1- 

hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic 

acid (HEDP) from India with respect to 

Aquapharm. The review covers the 

period April 23, 2009, through March 

31, 2010. We preliminarily determine 

that Aquapharm did not make sales 

below normal value (NV). 

If the preliminary results are adopted 

in our final results of the administrative 

review, we will issue appropriate 

assessment instructions to U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Goldberger or Brandon Custard, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–4136 or (202) 482– 

1823, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In response to a timely request by 

Aquapharm, on May 28, 2010, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of initiation of an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on HEDP from 

India with respect to Aquapharm 

covering the period April 23, 2009, 

through March 31, 2010. See Initiation 

of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 

29976 (May 28, 2010). 

On June 11, 2010, we issued the 

antidumping duty questionnaire to 

Aquapharm. On July 19, 2010, we 

received a response to section A (i.e., 

the section covering general information 

about the company), and on August 10, 

2010, we received responses to sections 

B (i.e., the section covering comparisonmarket sales) and C (i.e., the section 

covering U.S. sales) of the antidumping 

duty questionnaire from Aquapharm. 

On September 15, 2010, we issued to 

Aquapharm a supplemental 

questionnaire regarding its responses to 

sections A, B, and C of the original 

questionnaire, and received a response 

to this supplemental questionnaire on 

September 29, 2010. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order includes all grades of aqueous, 

acidic (non-neutralized) concentrations 

of 1-hydroxyethylidene-1, 1- 

diphosphonic acid,1 also referred to as 

hydroxethlylidenediphosphonic acid, 

hydroxyethanediphosphonic acid, 

acetodiphosphonic acid, and etidronic 

acid. The CAS (Chemical Abstract 

Service) registry number for HEDP is 

2809–21–4. The merchandise subject to 

this order is currently classified in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) at subheading 

2931.00.9043. It may also enter under 

HTSUS subheading 2811.19.6090. 

While HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes 

only, the written description of the 

scope of this order is dispositive. 

Period of Review 

The period of review (POR) is April 

23, 2009, through March 31, 2010. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether Aquapharm’s 

sales of HEDP from India to the United 

States were made at less than NV, 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. 

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 

we compared the EPs and CEPs of 

individual U.S. transactions to the 

weighted-average NV of the foreign like 

product where there were sales made in 

the ordinary course of trade. See 

discussion below. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

produced by Aquapharm covered by the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices 73043 

2Where NV is based on constructed value (CV), 

we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the 

sales from which we derive selling expenses, 

general and administrative (G&A) expenses, and 

profit for CV, where possible. 

description in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ 

section, above, to be foreign like 

products for purposes of determining 

appropriate product comparisons to 

U.S. sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.414(e)(2), we compared 

Aquapharm’s U.S. sales of HEDP to its 

sales of HEDP made in the home market. 

Where there were no contemporaneous 

sales within the definition of 19 CFR 

351.414(e)(2)(i), pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.414(e)(2)(ii) and (iii), we compared 

sales within the contemporaneous 

window period, which extends from 

three months prior to the month of the 

U.S. sale until two months after the sale. 

In making the product comparisons, we 

matched foreign like products based on 

their aqueous concentration. 

Aquapharm reported that, pursuant to 

section 771(16)(A) of the Act, all of its 

U.S. sales during the POR were identical 

based on the product matching criterion 

(i.e., aqueous concentration) to 

contemporaneous sales in the home 

market. Accordingly, in calculating 

Aquapharm’s NV, we made product 

comparisons without having to account 

for cost differences associated with 

differences in the physical 

characteristics of the merchandise 

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of 

the Act. 

Export Price and Constructed Export 

Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we calculated EP for those sales 

where the subject merchandise was sold 

to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 

United States prior to importation and 

CEP methodology was not otherwise 

warranted based on the facts of the 

record. We based EP on the packed 

delivered price to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States. Where 

appropriate, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.401(c), we adjusted the starting 

prices for billing adjustments. We made 

deductions for movement expenses in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act, which included, where 

appropriate, foreign inland freight from 

plant to the port of exportation, foreign 

brokerage and handling, U.S. brokerage 

and handling, international freight, U.S. 

inland freight to the customer, marine 

insurance, and U.S. customs duties 

(including harbor maintenance fees and 

merchandise processing fees). 

Pursuant to section 772(b) of the Act, 

we calculated CEP for those sales where 

the subject merchandise was 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 or by a seller affiliated with the 

producer or exporter, to a purchaser not 

affiliated with the producer or exporter. 

We based CEP on the packed ex-U.S. 

warehouse prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States. Where 

appropriate, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.401(c), we adjusted the starting 

prices for billing adjustments. We made 

deductions for movement expenses, in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act, which included, where 

appropriate, foreign inland freight from 

plant to the port of exportation, foreign 

brokerage and handling, U.S. brokerage 

and handling, international freight 

(inclusive of U.S. port to U.S. 

warehouse transportation), marine 

insurance, U.S. customs duties 

(including harbor maintenance fees and 

merchandise processing fees), and 

warehouse expenses. In accordance 

with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.402(b), we deducted those 

selling expenses associated with 

economic activities occurring in the 

United States, including direct selling 

expenses (i.e., credit expenses, 

commissions, and bank charges), and 

indirect selling expenses (including 

inventory carrying costs). We also 

deducted from CEP an amount for profit 

in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of 

the Act. In accordance with sections 

772(f)(1) and (2)(C)(iii) of the Act, we 

calculated the CEP profit percentage 

using information from Aquapharm’s 

audited financial statement. See 

Memorandum entitled ‘‘Aquapharm 

Preliminary Results Margin 

Calculation,’’ dated contemporaneously 

with this notice, for further discussion 

of the CEP profit calculation. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability and Selection 

of Comparison Market 

To determine whether there was a 

sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV, we compared the 

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. Based on this comparison, we 

determined that, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.404(b), Aquapharm had a viable 

home market during the POR. 

Consequently, pursuant to section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.404(c)(i), we based NV on home 

market sales. 

B. Level of Trade 

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act 

states that, to the extent practicable, the 

Department will calculate NV based on 

sales of the foreign like product at the 

same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or 

CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs 

if they are made at different marketing 

stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in 

selling activities are a necessary, but not 

sufficient condition for determining that 

there is a difference in the stages of 

marketing. See id.; see also Notice of 

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) (Plate from South Africa). To 

determine whether the comparisonmarket 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), including selling 

functions, class of customer (customer 

category), and the level of selling 

expenses for each type of sale. 

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 

the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and 

comparison-market sales (i.e., where NV 

is based on either home market or third 

country prices),2 we consider the 

starting prices before any adjustments. 

For CEP sales, we consider only the 

selling activities reflected in the price 

after the deduction of expenses and 

profit under section 772(d) of the Act. 

See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United 

States, 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314–16 (Fed. 

Cir. 2001). When the Department is 

unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign 

like product in the comparison market 

at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the 

Department may compare the U.S. sales 

to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market. In comparing EP or 

CEP sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market, where available 

data make it practicable, we make an 

LOT adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP 

sales only, if the NV LOT is at a more 

advanced stage of distribution than the 

LOT of the CEP and there is no basis for 

determining whether the difference in 

LOTs between NV and CEP affects price 

comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment 

was practicable), the Department shall 

grant a CEP offset, as provided in 

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate 

from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732–33. 

In this administrative review, we 

obtained information from Aquapharm 

regarding the marketing stages involved 

in making its reported home market and 

U.S. sales, including a description of the 

selling activities performed by 

Aquapharm for each channel of 

distribution. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

73044 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices 

Aquapharm reported that during the 

POR it sold HEDP to end-users, 

distributors, and end-users/distributors 

through three channels of distribution 

in the United States, and to end-users 

and traders through two channels of 

distribution in the home market. 

Aquapharm made CEP sales in the 

U.S. market through one channel of 

distribution: sales through an 

unaffiliated U.S. selling agent to an 

unaffiliated U.S. distributor of HEDP 

maintained in inventory at an 

unaffiliated U.S. warehouse (Channel 1). 

In addition, Aquapharm made EP sales 

in the U.S. market through two channels 

of distribution: Direct sales/shipments 

to unaffiliated U.S. end-users (Channel 

2); and direct sales/shipments to 

unaffiliated U.S. distributors (Channel 

3). 

We examined the selling activities 

performed for the three U.S. sales 

channels and found that Aquapharm 

performed the following selling 

functions for each channel: sales 

forecasting, order input/processing, 

direct sales personnel, packing, freight 

and delivery services, inventory 

maintenance, technical assistance, 

warranty service, and after-sales service. 

These selling activities can be generally 

grouped into four selling function 

categories for analysis: (1) Sales and 

marketing; (2) freight and delivery; (3) 

warehousing and inventory; and (4) 

warranty and technical support. 

Accordingly, based on the four selling 

function categories, we find that 

Aquapharm performed primarily sales 

and marketing, freight and delivery 

services, and warranty and technical 

services for U.S. sales. Although 

Aquapharm performed additional 

freight and delivery functions, (such as 

repacking) and warehousing functions 

for its U.S. sales through Channel 1, we 

did not find these differences to be 

material selling function distinctions 

which are significant enough to warrant 

a separate LOT in the U.S. market. 

Therefore, we preliminarily determine 

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

because Aquapharm performed 

essentially the same selling functions 

for all U.S. sales. 

With respect to the home market, 

Aquapharm made sales through the 

following channels of distribution: (1) 

Sales to unaffiliated end-users (Channel 

1); and sales to unaffiliated traders 

(Channel 2). We examined the selling 

activities performed for each home 

market sales channel and found that 

Aquapharm performed the following 

selling functions for sales made through 

both channels: Sales forecasting, order 

input/processing, advertising, direct 

sales personnel, sales/marketing 

support, market research, packing, 

freight and delivery services, inventory 

maintenance, technical assistance, and 

warranty service. Accordingly, based on 

the four selling function categories 

described above, we find that 

Aquapharm performed primarily sales 

and marketing, freight and delivery 

services, and warranty and technical 

services for home market sales. 

Moreover, we did not find any 

significant distinctions between the 

selling functions Aquapharm performed 

for each home market channel to 

warrant a separate LOT in the home 

market. Therefore, we preliminarily 

determine that there is one LOT in the 

home market because Aquapharm 

performed essentially the same selling 

functions for all home market sales. 

Finally, we compared the U.S. LOT to 

the home market LOT and found that 

the selling functions performed for 

home market sales are either performed 

at the same degree of intensity as, or 

vary only slightly from, the selling 

functions performed for U.S. sales. 

Specifically, we found that with respect 

to the four selling function categories, 

there are only slight differences in the 

level of intensity between the home and 

U.S. markets, and have preliminarily 

determined that these slight differences 

do not provide a sufficient basis to find 

separate LOTs between the two markets. 

Therefore, we find that the single home 

market LOT and single U.S. LOT are the 

same and, as a result, no LOT 

adjustment or CEP offset is warranted. 

Accordingly, we matched U.S. and 

home market sales at the same LOT. 

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison-Market Prices 

We based NV for Aquapharm on 

delivered prices to unaffiliated 

customers in the home market. We 

made deductions, where appropriate, 

from the starting price for discounts, 

inland freight expenses and inland 

insurance expenses, under section 

773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. Where 

appropriate, we also added freight and 

insurance revenue to the starting price, 

and capped it by the amount of freight 

and insurance expenses incurred, in 

accordance with our practice. See, e.g., 

Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Notice of 

Intent Not To Revoke Antidumping Duty 

Order in Part, 75 FR 50999 (August 18, 

2010), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we 

made, where appropriate, circumstanceof-sale adjustments for imputed credit 

expenses and bank charges. We also 

made adjustments in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.410(e) for indirect selling 

expenses incurred on comparison 

market or U.S. sales where commissions 

were granted on sales in one market but 

not the other. Specifically, where 

commissions were granted in the U.S. 

market but not in the comparison 

market, we made a downward 

adjustment to NV for the lesser of: (1) 

The amount of the commission paid in 

the U.S. market; or (2) the amount of the 

indirect selling expenses incurred in the 

comparison market. We also deducted 

home market packing costs and added 

U.S. packing costs, in accordance with 

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

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, 

based on the exchange rates in effect on 

the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by 

the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following weighted-average dumping 

margin exists for Aquapharm for the 

period April 23, 2009, through March 

31, 2010: 

Manufacturer/exporter Percent margin 

Aquapharm Chemicals 

Pvt., Ltd. ...................... 0.00 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with these preliminary 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, 

interested parties may submit case briefs 

not later than 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. Rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs, may be filed not later than 

five days after the date for filing case 

briefs. Parties who submit case briefs or 

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are 

encouraged to submit with each 

argument: (1) A statement of the issue; 

(2) a brief summary of the argument; 

and (3) a table of authorities. 

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, Room 1870, within 30 

days of the date of 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 issues to be discussed. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices 73045 

1See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 

29976 (May 28, 2010) (‘‘Initiation’’). 

2See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Magnesium 

Metal from the People’s Republic of China: Intent 

to Rescind the 2009–2010 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Magnesium Metal from 

the People’s Republic of China—A–570–896,’’ dated 

November 1, 2010 (‘‘Intent to Rescind 

Memorandum’’). 

the hearing will be limited to those 

raised in the respective case briefs. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any written briefs, not 

later than 120 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212. The Department intends to 

issue appropriate appraisement 

instructions for the company subject to 

this review directly to CBP 15 days after 

the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. 

Where the respondent reported 

entered value for its U.S. sales, we will 

calculate importer-specific ad valorem 

duty assessment rates based on the ratio 

of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

to the total entered value of the 

examined sales for that importer. 

Where the respondent did not report 

entered value for its U.S. sales, we will 

calculate importer-specific per-unit duty 

assessment rates by aggregating the total 

amount of antidumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity of those sales. To determine 

whether the duty assessment rates are 

de minimis, in accordance with the 

requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we will calculate 

importer-specific ad valorem ratios 

based on the estimated entered value. 

We will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review if any 

importer-specific assessment rate 

calculated in the final results of this 

review is above de minimis (i.e., at or 

above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate without regard to antidumping 

duties any entries for which the 

assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less 

than 0.50 percent). The final results of 

this review shall be the basis for the 

assessment of antidumping duties on 

entries of merchandise covered by the 

final results of this review and for future 

deposits of estimated duties, where 

applicable. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by the 

company included in these final results 

of review for which the reviewed 

company did not know that the 

merchandise it sold to the intermediary 

(e.g., a reseller, trading company, or 

exporter) was destined for the United 

States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries at the all-others rate effective 

during the POR if there is no rate for the 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

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)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 

The cash deposit rate for the company 

listed above will be that established in 

the final results of this review, except if 

the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, 

therefore, de minimis within the 

meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in 

which case the cash deposit rate will be 

zero; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not 

participating in this review, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is 

not a firm covered in this review or the 

original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 

investigation, but the manufacturer is, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit 

rate for all other manufacturers or 

exporters will continue to be 3.10 

percent, the all-others rate made 

effective by the LTFV investigation. See 

1–Hydroxyethylidene–1, 1– 

Diphosphonic Acid from India: Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, 74 FR 10543 (March 

11, 2009). These requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) 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. 

This administrative review and notice 

are published in accordance with 

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

Act and 19 CFR 351.221. 

Dated: November 19, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29963 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–896] 

Magnesium Metal From the People’s 

Republic of China: Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: November 29, 2010. 

SUMMARY: On May 28, 2010, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published a notice of 

initiation of an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

magnesium metal from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).1 The review 

covers one manufacturer/exporter of 

subject merchandise from the PRC, 

Tianjin Magnesium International Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘TMI’’). The period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) is April 1, 2009, through March 

31, 2010. Following the receipt of a 

certification of no shipments from TMI, 

we notified all interested parties of the 

Department’s intent to rescind this 

review and provided an opportunity to 

comment on the rescission.2 We 

received no comments. Therefore, we 

are rescinding this administrative 

review. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel LaCivita, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 8, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–4243. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES