42390 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 148 / Thursday, August 2, 2007 / Notices 

Comment 6 Voluntary Responses of 

Non–selected Respondents 

Comment 7 Incorporation of Zeroing for 

Mandatory Respondents 

Comment 8 Incorporation of Zeroing for 

Non–selected Respondents 

Comment 9 Valuation of Cartons 

Comment 10 Rescission of Review: 

Shanxi Zhongding 

Comment 11 Separate Rate: Huanri 

Group 

Comment 12 Respondent Selection 

Methodology 

Comment 13 Clerical Error Freight 

Expenses for Golrich’s Buckles and 

Cartons 

Comment 14 Clerical Error Valuation of 

Steel Strap 

[FR Doc. E7–15037 Filed 8–1–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–831] 

Fresh Garlic From the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of Time 

Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 

12th Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

DATES: Effective Date: August 2, 2007, 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia 

Hancock or Matthew Renkey, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1394 and (202) 

482–2312, respectively. 

Background 

On December 27, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published a notice of 

initiation of an administrative review of 

fresh garlic from the People’s Republic 

of China (‘‘PRC’’), covering the period 

November 1, 2005, through October 31, 

2006. See Notice of Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 77720 

(December 27, 2006). On April 11, 2007, 

after receiving quantity and value and 

separate rate responses, the Department 

selected the mandatory respondents for 

this review. Between May 14, 2007, and 

June 11, 2007, the Department received 

the initial section A, C and D 

questionnaire responses from the 

mandatory respondents. The 

preliminary results of this 

administrative review are currently due 

on August 2, 2007. 

Extension of Time Limit for the 

Preliminary Results 

The Department determines that 

completion of the preliminary results of 

this review within the statutory time 

period is not practicable, given the 

extraordinarily complicated nature of 

the proceeding. The 12th administrative 

review covers 19 companies (three 

mandatory respondents and 16 separate 

rate respondents), requiring the 

Department to gather and analyze a 

significant amount of information 

pertaining to each company’s corporate 

structure and ownership, sales 

practices, and manufacturing methods. 

The Department requires more time 

within which to complete its analysis. 

Furthermore, this review involves the 

extraordinarily complicated 

intermediate input methodology issue. 

Lastly, the Department requires 

additional time to analyze the 

questionnaire responses and to issue 

supplemental questionnaires. 

Therefore, given the number and 

complexity of issues in this case, and in 

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

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

Act’’), we are extending the time period 

for issuing the preliminary results of 

review by 120 days until November 30, 

2007. The final results continue to be 

due 120 days after the publication of the 

preliminary results. 

This notice is published pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.213(h)(2). 

Dated: July 23, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–14919 Filed 8–1–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–549–812] 

Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: 

Preliminary Results of the 2005–2006 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commence is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on furfuryl 

alcohol from Thailand. The period of 

review is July 1, 2005, through May 3, 

2006. This review covers imports of 

furfuryl alcohol from one producer/ 

exporter. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

of subject merchandise have not been 

made at less than normal value. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results, we will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection to 

liquidate entries of furfuryl alcohol from 

Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. 

without regard to antidumping duties. 

We invite interested parties to comment 

on these preliminary results. We will 

issue the final results not later than 120 

days from the date of publication of this 

notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 2, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Damian Felton or Brandon Farlander, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0133 

and (202) 482–0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 25, 1995, the Department 

published an antidumping duty order 

on furfuryl alcohol from Thailand. See 

Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Notice 

of Amended Final Antidumping Duty 

Determinant and Order, 60 FR 38035 

(July 25, 1995). On July 3, 2006, the 

Department published its Antidumping 

or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, 

or Suspended Investigation; 

Opportunity to Request Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). On 

July 28, 2006, Penn Specialty 

Chemicals, Inc. (‘‘petitioner’’) requested 

that the Department conduct an 

administrative review of Indorama 

Chemicals (Thailand), Ltd. (‘‘IRCT’’), a 

producer and exporter of furfuryl 

alcohol from Thailand. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), we 

published a notice of initiation of this 

antidumping duty administrative review 

on August 30, 2006. See Notice of 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006) 

(‘‘Furfuryl Alcohol Initiation’’). 

An antidumping duty questionnaire 

was sent to IRCT on September 6, 2006. 

We received timely responses to the 

questionnaire from IRCT on September 

27, 2006, and October 27, 2006. On 

April 3, 2007, in accordance with 

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

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), we 

published a notice extending the time 

limit for the completion of the 

preliminary results in this case by 120 

days (i.e., until no later than July 31, 

2007). See Furfuryl Alcohol from 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 148 / Thursday, August 2, 2007 / Notices 42391 

1On August 30, 2006, the Department published 

a notice of initiation for this administrative review 

covering the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 

2006. See Furfuryl Alcohol Initiation. However, 

since the initiation, the Department has revoked 

this order effective May 4, 2006. See Furfuryl 

Alcohol from Thailand; Final Results of the Second 

Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order and 

Revocation of the Order, 72 FR 9729 (March 5, 

2006). Therefore, the revised POR is now July 1, 

2005 through May 3, 2006. 

2The marketing process in the United States and 

comparison market begins with the producer and 

extends to the sale to the final user or consumer. 

The chain of distribution between the two may have 

many or few links, and the respondent’s sales occur 

somewhere along this chain. 

3Selling functions associated with a particular 

chain of distribution helps us to evaluate the 

level(s) of trade in a particular market. For purposes 

of these preliminary results, we have organized the 

common selling functions into four major 

categories: sales process and marketing support, 

Continued 

Thailand: Notice of Extension for Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of the 

2005–2006 Antidumping Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 15863 (April 3, 2007). 

We issued a supplemental 

questionnaire regarding IRCT’s 

responses to sections A, B, and C of the 

Department’s original questionnaire on 

May 3, 2007, and received a timely 

response from IRCT on May 25, 2007. 

We issued an additional supplemental 

questionnaire on June 18, 2007, and 

received a timely response to the second 

supplemental questionnaire on June 22, 

2007. 

Period of Review 

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) covers 

July 1, 2005, through May 3, 2006.1

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order is furfuryl alcohol (C4H3OCH2OH). 

Furfuryl alcohol is a primary alcohol, 

and is colorless or pale yellow in 

appearance. It is used in the 

manufacture of resins and as a wetting 

agent and solvent for coating resins, 

nitrocellulose, cellulose acetate, and 

other soluble dyes. 

The product subject to this order is 

classifiable under subheading 

2932.13.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Although the HTSUS subheading is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

scope of this proceeding is dispositive. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of 

furfuryl alcohol by IRCT to the United 

States were made at less than normal 

value (‘‘NV’’), we compared the export 

price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described in the 

‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’

sections of this notice, below. 

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

Act, we compared the EPs of individual 

U.S. transactions to the weightedaverage sales prices of the foreign like 

product, where there were sales made in 

the ordinary course of trade, as 

discussed in the ‘‘Normal Value’’

section of this notice. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

produced by IRCT covered by the 

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. In making product 

comparisons, consistent with the Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from 

Thailand: Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value, 60 FR 22557 

(May 8, 1995) and Furfuryl Alcohol from 

Thailand: Notice of Amended Final 

Antidumping Duty Determination and 

Order, 60 FR 38035 (July 25, 1995) 

(collectively ‘‘LTFV Final’’), we 

matched foreign like products based on 

the physical characteristics reported by 

IRCT. 

Export Price 

We calculated EP in accordance with 

section 772(a) of the Act because the 

merchandise was sold to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States prior to importation by the 

exporter or producer and constructed 

export price methodology was not 

otherwise warranted. We based EP on 

the packed delivered, freight-on-board, 

cash-in-freight, or the delivery-duty 

paid price to unaffiliated purchasers in 

the United States. We made deductions 

from the starting price for movement 

expenses in accordance with section 

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

deductions included foreign inland 

freight, country of manufacture inland 

insurance, brokerage and handling, 

international freight, and marine 

insurance. We also made adjustments to 

the starting price for duty drawback in 

accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of 

the Act. 

It is normally the Department’s 

practice to confirm that the duty 

drawback adjustment claimed by the 

respondent meets the Department’s twopronged criteria for determining 

whether the duty drawback adjustment 

is appropriate. See Rajinder Pipes, Ltd. 

v. United States, 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 

1358 (CIT 1999); see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular 

Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 69 FR 

53675 (September 2, 2004) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1; and 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof from the Republic of 

Korea, 71 FR 29310 (May 22, 2006) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 49. We have 

determined that only one of the reported 

inputs used in the projection of furfuryl 

alcohol meets the two-pronged criteria. 

Therefore, we made an adjustment to 

the starting price for duty drawback to 

account for import duties paid on the 

importation of a single input used in the 

production of the subject merchandise. 

for an in-depth explanation of these 

changes, see Memorandum from Case 

Analyst to File, ‘‘Preliminary Results 

Calculation Memorandum for Indorama 

Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd.,’’ (‘‘Prelim 

Calc Memo’’) dated July 25, 2007, 

available in the Department’s CRU. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability 

In order to determine whether there 

was a sufficient volume of sales in the 

home market to serve as a viable basis 

for calculating NV, we compared the 

volume of IRCT’s home market sales of 

the foreign like product to the volume 

of its U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise, in accordance with 

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

Because IRCT’s aggregate volume of 

home market sales of the foreign like 

product was greater than five percent of 

its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the 

subject merchandise, we determined 

that the home market was viable. 

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 at the same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) 

as the EP. 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. Id.; see also 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

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

Africa. 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 

19, 1997). In order to determine whether 

the comparison 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’’),2 including selling 

functions,3 class of customer (‘‘customer 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

42392 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 148 / Thursday, August 2, 2007 / Notices 

freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, 

and quality assurance/warranty services. 

category’’), and the level of selling 

expenses for each sale. 

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

the Act, in identifying levels of trade for 

EP and comparison market sales, we 

consider the starting prices before any 

adjustments. See Micron Technology, 

Inc. v. United States, et. al., 243 F. 3d 

1301, 1314–1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 

(affirming this methodology). 

When the Department is unable to 

match U.S. EP sales to sales of the 

foreign like product in the comparison 

market at the same LOT as the EP, the 

Department may compare the U.S. sale 

to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market. In comparing EP 

sales to a different LOT in the 

comparison market, where available 

data make it practical, we make a LOT 

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 

the Act. 

IRCT reported one LOT in the home 

market and one LOT in the U.S. market. 

IRCT reported making sales only to endusers in the home market. In the United 

States, IRCT reported that it made sales 

only to a trading company. We 

examined the information IRCT 

reported regarding its marketing process 

for making the reported comparison 

market and U.S. sales, including the 

type and level of selling activities 

performed and customer categories. 

Specifically, we considered the extent to 

which the sales process, freight services, 

warehouse/inventory maintenance, and 

warranty services varied with respect to 

the different customer categories (i.e., 

distributors and end-users). Based on 

our analysis, we found that the single 

LOT in the United States is identical to 

the single LOT in the comparison 

market. Thus, we preliminarily find that 

a LOT adjustment for IRCT is not 

warranted. 

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

We calculated NV based on the 

delivered prices to unaffiliated 

customers. In accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(b)(ii) of the Act, we made 

deductions for inland freight and inland 

insurance. Furthermore, where 

appropriate, we made adjustments for 

differences in circumstances of sale 

(‘‘COS’’) in accordance with section 

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

351.410 by deducting direct selling 

expenses incurred on comparison 

market sales (credit expenses), and 

adding U.S. direct selling expenses 

(credit expenses). We deducted 

inventory carrying costs incurred on 

comparison market sales, and added 

U.S. inventory carrying cost. We 

deducted home market packing costs 

and added U.S. packing costs in 

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

and (B) of the Act. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We preliminarily find that the 

following dumping margin exists for the 

period July 1, 2005, through May 3, 

2006. 

Manufacturer/Exporter 

Weighted-Average Margin 

(Percentage) 

Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. ........................... * 0.39 

* This is a de minimis rate. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of this 

administrative review, the Department 

will determine, and U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), 

the Department calculates an 

assessment rate for each importer (or 

customer) of the subject merchandise. 

Upon issuance of the final results of this 

administrative review, if any importer 

(or customer)-specific assessment rates 

calculated in the final results are above 

de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), 

the Department will issue appraisement 

instructions directly to CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on appropriate 

entries. 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 Department intends to issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review. 

Cash Deposit Rates 

On March 5, 2006, pursuant to section 

751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.222(i)(1)(ii), the Department 

revoked the antidumping duty order on 

furfuryl alcohol from Thailand (see 

Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand; Final 

Results of the Second Sunset Review of 

the Antidumping Duty Order and 

Revocation of the Order, 72 FR 9729 

(March 5, 2006)). The effective date of 

the revocation is May 4, 2007. As a 

result of this action, we do not intend 

to issue cash deposit instructions. 

Public Comment 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). A 

hearing, if requested, will be 44 days 

after the publication of this notice, or 

the first business day thereafter. Issues 

raised in the hearing will be limited to 

those raised in the case and rebuttal 

briefs. Interested parties may submit 

case briefs and/or written comments no 

later than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal 

briefs and rebuttals to written 

comments, limited to issues raised in 

such briefs or comments, may be filed 

no later than five days after submission 

of case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 

Parties who submit arguments are 

requested to submit with the argument 

(1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief 

summary of the argument, and (3) a 

table of authorities. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any such written briefs 

or hearing, no later than 120 days after 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: July 25, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 07–3764 Filed 8–1–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–891] 

Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

DATES: Effective Date: August 2, 2007. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) has determined that 

the request for a new shipper review of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES