20816 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / Notices 

Scope of the Order 

This order covers cold–rolled (cold–

reduced) carbon steel flat–rolled carbon 

steel products, of rectangular shape, 

either clad, plated, or coated with 

corrosion–resistant metals such as zinc, 

aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickelor iron–based alloys, whether or not 

corrugated or painted, varnished or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances in addition to 

the metallic coating, in coils (whether or 

not in successively superimposed 

layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or 

greater, or in straight lengths which, if 

of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, 

are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and 

which measures at least 10 times the 

thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 

millimeters or more are of a width 

which exceeds 150 millimeters and 

measures at least twice the thickness, as 

currently classifiable in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) under item numbers 

7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 

7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 

7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 

7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 

7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 

7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 

7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 

7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 

7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 

7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 

7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 

7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 

7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 

7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 

7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in 

this order are corrosion–resistant flat–

rolled products of non–rectangular 

cross-section where such cross-section 

is achieved subsequent to the rolling 

process (i.e., products which have been 

‘‘worked after rolling’’) – for example, 

products which have been beveled or 

rounded at the edges. Excluded from 

this order are flat–rolled steel products 

either plated or coated with tin, lead, 

chromium, chromium oxides, both tin 

and lead (‘‘terne plate’’), or both 

chromium and chromium oxides (‘‘tin–

free steel’’), whether or not painted, 

varnished or coated with plastics or 

other nonmetallic substances in 

addition to the metallic coating. Also 

excluded from this order are clad 

products in straight lengths of 0.1875 

inch or more in composite thickness 

and of a width which exceeds 150 

millimeters and measures at least twice 

the thickness. Also excluded from this 

order are certain clad stainless flat–

rolled products, which are three–

layered corrosion–resistant carbon steel 

flat–rolled products less than 4.75 

millimeters in composite thickness that 

consist of a carbon steel flat–rolled 

product clad on both sides with 

stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. 

These HTSUS item numbers are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes. The written descriptions 

remain dispositive. 

Amended Final Results of Review 

After analyzing U.S. Steel’s 

comments, we have determined, in 

accordance with section 751(h) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.224, that the 

Department has made a ministerial error 

in the final results calculation for Union 

in this administrative review. For a 

detailed discussion of the ministerial 

error, see Memorandum from Jolanta 

Lawska to James Terpstra, re: Amended 

Final Results in the 04/05 

Administrative Review on Corrosion–

Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

from Korea, at page 2, dated April 4, 

2007 (Ministerial Error Memo). 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

751(h) of the Act, we are amending the 

final results of the antidumping duty 

administrative review of CORE from 

Korea for the period August 1, 2004, to 

July 31, 2005. As a result of correcting 

the ministerial error discussed in the 

Ministerial Error Memo, Union’s 

weighted–average dumping margin 

increased from 1.45 percent to 1.46 

percent. For the remaining respondents, 

the weighted–average dumping margins 

remain the same. See Final Results. 

Duty Assessment and Cash Deposit 

Requirements 

The Department will determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries. The 

Department intends to issue assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the 

amended final results of this review, 

where injunctions are not in place. 

Further, the following cash–deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of these final amended 

results of the administrative review for 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of these final amended 

results, as provided by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for subject 

merchandise exported by Union, the 

cash–deposit rate will be 1.46 percent 

(2) for Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., Hyundai 

HYSCO, and Pohang Iron & Steel 

Company, Ltd., the cash deposit rate 

will remain as established in the Final 

Results. These deposit requirements 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

These amended final results of 

administrative review and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and (h), and 

777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 

351.224. 

Dated: April 19, 2007. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–8016 Filed 4–25–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–845, A–580–858, A–588–868] 

Glycine from India, Japan, and the 

Republic of Korea: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 26, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Lindsay (India), Toni Page (Japan), 

or Dmitry Vladimirov and Janis Kalnins 

(Republic of Korea), AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6 and Office 5, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0780, 

(202) 482–1398, (202) 482–0665, or 

(202) 482–1392 respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions 

On March 30, 2007, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) received 

petitions concerning imports of glycine 

from India (Indian Petition), Japan 

(Japanese Petition), and the Republic of 

Korea (Korea) (Korean Petition) 

(collectively, the Petitions), filed in 

proper form by Geo Specialty 

Chemicals, Inc. (Petitioner). See the 

Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties on Imports of 

Glycine from India, Japan, and the 

Republic of Korea filed on March 30, 

2007. On April 5, 2007, the Department 

issued a request for additional 

information and clarification of certain 

areas of the Petitions. Based on the 

Department’s request, Petitioner filed 

Petition Supplements on April 3, 12, 13, 

17, and 18, 2007. In the April 18, 2007, 

Petition Supplement, Petitioner 

confirmed the final scope language. In 

addition, Petitioner submitted certain 

revisions to their cost calculations for 

India, Japan and Korea. We note that, 

although this revised cost data 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / Notices 20817 

1See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 25 CIT 49, 55- 

56 (January 24, 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp. v. 

United States, 12 CIT 518 (June 8, 1988)). 

contained minor errors, Petitioner’s 

revisions to that data were generally 

consistent with the revisions made by 

the Department. See ‘‘Cost of Production 

and Constructed Value section,’’ below. 

Also based on the Department’s request, 

the Petitioner refiled certain 

submissions to correct (1) the 

designation of information that may not 

be released under APO and (2) their 

request for business proprietary 

treatment of certain information on 

April 10 and 13, 2007. 

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), Petitioner alleges that imports of 

glycine from India, Japan, and Korea are 

being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value, 

within the meaning of section 731 of the 

Act, and that such imports are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, an industry in the 

United States. 

Period of Investigation (POI) 

In accordance with section 351.204(b) 

of the Department’s regulations, because 

the petition was filed on March 30, 

2007, the proposed period of 

investigation for India, Japan and Korea 

is January 1, 2006 through December 31, 

2006, as this includes the four most 

recently completed fiscal quarters as of 

February 2007. 

Scope of the Investigations 

The merchandise covered by each of 

these three investigations is glycine, 

which in its solid (i.e., crystallized) form 

is a free–flowing crystalline material. 

Glycine is used as a sweetener/taste 

enhancer, buffering agent, reabsorbable 

amino acid, chemical intermediate, 

metal complexing agent, dietary 

supplement, and is used in certain 

pharmaceuticals. The scope of each of 

these investigations covers glycine in 

any form and purity level. Although 

glycine blended with other materials is 

not covered by the scope of each of 

these investigations, glycine to which 

relatively small quantities of other 

materials have been added is covered by 

the scope. Glycine’s chemical 

composition is C2H5NO2 and is 

normally classified under subheading 

2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

The scope of each of these 

investigations also covers precursors of 

dried crystalline glycine, including, but 

not limited to, glycine slurry (i.e., 

glycine in a non–crystallized form) and 

sodium glycinate. Glycine slurry is 

classified under the same HTSUS 

subheading as crystallized glycine 

(2922.49.4020) and sodium glycinate is 

classified under subheading HTSUS 

2922.49.8000. 

While HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and Customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

scope of these investigations is 

dispositive. 

Comments on the Scope of the 

Investigations 

During our review of the Petitions, we 

discussed the scope with Petitioner to 

ensure that it is an accurate reflection of 

the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 

discussed in the preamble to the 

regulations (Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are 

setting aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage. The Department encourages 

all interested parties to submit such 

comments within 20 calendar days of 

the publication of this notice. 

Comments should be addressed to 

Import Administration’s Central 

Records Unit (CRU), Room 1870, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230. The period of 

scope consultations is intended to 

provide the Department with ample 

opportunity to consider all comments 

and to consult with parties prior to the 

issuance of the preliminary 

determinations. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions 

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed by an interested 

party on behalf of the domestic 

industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 

provides that a petition meets this 

requirement if (1) the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for at least 25 percent 

of the total production of the domestic 

like product and (2) the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for more than 50 

percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for or opposition to the petition. 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether the petition has 

the requisite industry support, the 

statute directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The International 

Trade Commission (ITC) is responsible 

for determining whether ‘‘the domestic 

industry’’ has been injured and must 

also determine what constitutes a 

domestic like product in order to define 

the industry. While the Department and 

the ITC must apply the same statutory 

definition regarding the domestic like 

product, they do so for different 

purposes and pursuant to separate and 

distinct authority. See section 771(10) of 

the Act. In addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

domestic like product, such differences 

do not render the decision of either 

agency contrary to law.1

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’

i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition. 

With regard to domestic like product, 

Petitioner does not offer a definition of 

domestic like product distinct from the 

scope of each investigation. Based on 

our analysis of the information 

submitted in the petitions, we have 

determined that the domestic like 

product consists of all grades of glycine, 

as well as sodium glycinate, which is 

defined in the ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigations’’ section above, and we 

have analyzed industry support in terms 

of the domestic like product. 

We received no expression of 

opposition to these petitions from any 

member of the domestic industry. 

Petitioner accounts for a sufficient 

percentage of the total production of the 

domestic like product, and the 

requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A) are 

met. Accordingly, the Department 

determines that the Petitions were filed 

on behalf of the domestic industry 

within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) 

of the Act. See ‘‘Office of AD/CVD 

Operations Initiation Checklist for the 

Antidumping Duty Petition on Glycine 

from India,’’ at Attachment II (April 19, 

2007) (India AD Initiation Checklist), 

‘‘Office of AD/CVD Operations Initiation 

Checklist for the Antidumping Duty 

Petition on Glycine from Japan,’’ at 

Attachment II (April 19, 2007) (Japan 

AD Initiation Checklist), and ‘‘Office of 

AD/CVD Operations Initiation Checklist 

for the Antidumping Duty Petition on 

Glycine from Korea,’’ at Attachment II 

(April 19, 2007) (Korea AD Initiation 

Checklist), on file in the CRU. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
20818 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / Notices 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioner alleges that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is materially injured, or is 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the individual and cumulated 

imports of the subject merchandise sold 

at less than normal value (NV). 

Petitioner contends that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by the 

decline in customer base, market share, 

domestic shipments, prices, financial 

performance, and lost sales. We have 

assessed the allegations and supporting 

evidence regarding material injury and 

causation, and we have determined that 

these allegations are properly supported 

by adequate evidence and meet the 

statutory requirements for initiation. See 

the country–specific Initiation 

Checklists at Attachment III. 

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value 

The following is a description of the 

allegations of sales at less than fair value 

upon which the Department based its 

decision to initiate these investigations 

on imports of glycine from India, Japan, 

and Korea. The sources of data for the 

deductions and adjustments relating to 

the U.S. price as well as NV for India, 

Japan, and Korea are also discussed in 

the country–specific Initiation 

Checklists. Should the need arise to use 

any of this information as facts available 

under section 776 of the Act in our 

preliminary or final determinations, we 

will reexamine the information and 

revise the margin calculations, if 

appropriate. 

Export Price (EP) 

Petitioner calculated EP using 

information from sales the company lost 

to Indian, Japanese, and Korean 

exporters. When based on lost sale 

prices, Petitioner adjusted U.S. prices 

for home market inland freight, 

international freight, U.S. inland freight, 

distributor mark–up, and credit 

expenses. See Indian Petition at page 28, 

Japanese Petition at page 30, and Korean 

Petition at pages 31–32. 

Petitioner also calculated EP from 

Korea using the free–on-board (FOB) 

foreign–port average unit customs 

values (AUVs) for 2006 for import data 

obtained from the U.S. International 

Trade Commission data website. 

Petitioner used the HTSUS subheading 

under which all three grades of subject 

merchandise (pharmaceutical, technical, 

and food) are imported (2922.49.4020). 

Petitioner provided shipment data from 

PIERS Global Intelligence Services for 

the same HTSUS subheading to 

demonstrate that most entries of glycine 

from Korea during 2006 were of ‘‘pure 

food grade’’ glycine. See Volume II of 

the Petitions at Exhibit DOC–15. 

Petitioner made an adjustment to the 

AUV–based EP from Korea for foreign 

inland freight. 

Revisions to Export Price (EP) 

Based on our review of the 

information contained in the Petitions, 

we recalculated net EP (when based on 

a price quotation) by excluding an 

adjustment to EP for U.S. credit 

expenses. We also recalculated net EP 

(when based on a price quotation) by 

revising the reported amount associated 

with a distributor’s mark–up to reflect 

the percentage mark–up. Petitioner 

stated that this mark–up was an average 

mark–up for glycine sales in the United 

States. See Volume II of the Petitions at 

Exhibits DOC–27 through DOC–29; also 

April 13, 2007, Petition Supplement at 

Exhibits L, M, and N. See Initiation 

Checklists. 

Normal Value (NV) 

India and Japan 

Petitioner stated that, since it does not 

sell glycine in the Indian, Japanese, or 

Korean markets, it does not have 

specific knowledge of how glycine is 

sold, marketed, or packaged in those 

domestic markets. Petitioner was able to 

determine domestic Indian and Japanese 

prices for glycine by obtaining price 

quotations, through an economic 

consultant, from Indian and Japanese 

manufacturers of glycine. See 

memoranda ‘‘Telephone Call to Market 

Research Firm Regarding the 

Antidumping Petition on Glycine from 

India,’’ and ‘‘Telephone Call to Market 

Research Firm Regarding the 

Antidumping Petition on Glycine from 

Japan,’’ dated April 19, 2007. These 

price quotations identified specific 

terms of sale and payment terms. 

Petitioner made adjustments for home 

market credit for Indian sales. Petitioner 

did not make adjustment for home 

market credit to Japanese prices. See 

Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibits 

DOC–17–18 and 22–23. 

Revisions to Normal Value 

Based on our review of the 

information contained in the Petitions, 

we recalculated NV for India and Japan 

(when based on price quotations) by 

excluding the adjustment for home 

market and U.S. credit expenses. See 

India AD Initiation Checklist and Japan 

AD Initiation Checklist. 

Sales Below Cost Allegation for India 

and Japan 

Petitioner has provided information 

demonstrating reasonable grounds to 

believe or suspect that certain sales of 

glycine in India and Japan were made at 

prices below the fully absorbed cost of 

production (COP), within the meaning 

of section 773(b) of the Act, and has 

requested that the Department conduct 

country–wide sales below COP 

investigations. An allegation of sales 

below COP in a petition need not be 

specific to individual exporters or 

producers. See Statement of 

Administrative Action accompanying 

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 

H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, Vol. 1 (1994) at 

833. Thus, Commerce will consider 

allegations of below–cost sales in the 

aggregate for a foreign country. Id. 

Further, section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act 

requires that the Department have 

‘‘reasonable grounds to believe or 

suspect’’ that below–cost sales have 

occurred before initiating such an 

investigation. Reasonable grounds exist 

when an interested party provides 

specific factual information on costs and 

prices, observed or constructed, 

indicating that sales in the foreign 

market in question are at below–cost 

prices. Id. 

As described in the section below on 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value,’’ the Department calculated a 

country–specific COP for a certain grade 

of glycine for India and Japan. Based 

upon a comparison of price quotations 

for sales of that same grade glycine in 

India and Japan and the country–

specific COP of the product, we find 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that sales of glycine in India and Japan 

were made below the COP, within the 

meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 

Act. Accordingly, the Department is 

initiating country–wide cost 

investigations with regard to both India 

and Japan. Because it alleged sales 

below cost, pursuant to sections 

773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, 

Petitioner also based NV for Indian and 

Japanese sales of a certain grade glycine 

on constructed value (CV). 

Korea 

Petitioner claimed that, despite 

extensive efforts to determine prices in 

Korea, it was not able to obtain usable 

price information for calendar year 2006 

either for sales of glycine in Korea or for 

sales of glycine by Korean producers/ 

exporters in third countries. See e.g., 

Korean Petition at pages 27 and 35 and 

April 19, 2007; as well as Memorandum 

to File, ‘‘Telephone Call to Market 

Research Firm Regarding the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / Notices 20819 

Antidumping Petition on Glycine from 

Korea’’ (April 19, 2007). Consequently, 

Petitioner relied on COP and CV 

information in determining NV for 

Korea. See ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value,’’ section below. 

Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value 

As noted above, Petitioner was unable 

to obtain usable price information for 

Korea; therefore, the appropriate basis 

for normal value for comparison to EP 

from Korea is CV. Also, as discussed 

above, Petitioner has established that 

certain sales of glycine in India and 

Japan were made at prices below the 

fully absorbed COP, within the meaning 

of section 773(b) of the Act. As such, CV 

was used for India and Japan when the 

home market prices for a certain grade 

glycine used in the cost comparisons 

fell below the COP. The calculation of 

COP and CV for each of the three 

countries is set forth below. 

India 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the 

Act, COP consists of the cost of 

manufacturing (COM); selling, general 

and administrative (SG&A) expenses; 

financial expenses; and packing 

expenses. To calculate the COM, 

Petitioner multiplied the usage quantity 

of each input needed to produce one 

metric ton (MT) of glycine by the value 

of that input. Petitioner obtained all of 

the quantity and value data it used to 

calculate the COM from public sources. 

Petitioner obtained the input usage 

factors from the public record of the 

1997–1998 administrative review of 

glycine from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC). The producer in the 1997–

1998 review produced glycine by the 

same production method that producers 

in India use. The petitioner obtained the 

values for the inputs from various 

public sources. Petitioner calculated 

factory overhead, SG&A and the 

financial expense rate based on the 

Indian surrogate ratios that the 

Department used in the preliminary 

results of the 2005–2006 administrative 

review of glycine from the PRC. Where 

we used CV to determine NV, Petitioner 

added an amount for profit from the 

same financial statements. 

We adjusted Petitioner’s calculation 

of SG&A to apply the rate to COM 

inclusive of factory overhead. We did 

not include a separate financial expense 

amount as petitioner did because the 

SG&A ratio already included financial 

expense. See the India AD Initiation 

Checklist for a full description of 

Petitioner’s methodology and the 

adjustments the Department made to 

those calculations. 

Japan 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the 

Act, COP consists of COM; SG&A 

expenses; financial expenses; and 

packing expenses. To calculate the 

COM, Petitioner multiplied the usage 

quantity of each input needed to 

produce one MT of glycine by the value 

of that input. Petitioner obtained all of 

the quantity and value data it used to 

calculate the COM from public sources. 

As it did for the allegation involving 

India, Petitioner obtained the input 

usage factors from the public record of 

the 1997–1998 administrative review of 

glycine from the PRC. The producer in 

the 1997–1998 review produced glycine 

by the same production method that 

producers in Japan use. Petitioner 

obtained the values for the inputs from 

various public sources. Petitioner 

calculated average factory overhead, 

SG&A and the financial expense rate 

based on current financial statements of 

a Japanese producer of glycine. Where 

we used CV to determine NV, Petitioner 

added an amount for profit from the 

same financial statements. 

We adjusted Petitioner’s calculation 

of SG&A to apply the rate to COM 

inclusive of factory overhead. See Japan 

AD Initiation Checklist for a full 

description of Petitioner’s methodology 

and the adjustments the Department 

made to those calculations. 

Korea 

Petitioner calculated the Korean COP 

using the same methodology to calculate 

COM as it used for Japan and India. 

That is, Petitioner calculated the Korean 

COM by multiplying the usage quantity 

of each input needed to produce one 

MT of glycine by the value of that input. 

Petitioner obtained all of the quantity 

and value data it used to calculate the 

COM from public sources. Petitioner 

obtained the input usage factors from 

the public record of the 1997–1998 

administrative review of glycine from 

the PRC. The respondent in the 1997–

1998 Chinese review produced glycine 

by the same production method that 

producers in Korea use. Petitioner 

obtained the values for the inputs from 

various public sources. Petitioner 

calculated factory overhead, SG&A and 

the financial expense rate based on the 

financial statements of a Korean 

producer of lysine and threonine, amino 

acids which use production methods 

similar to glycine. Because Petitioner 

used CV for NV for Korea, it added an 

amount for profit in accordance with 

section 773(e)(2) of the Act. The profit 

rate was based on the financial 

statements of the same Korean producer 

of lysine and threonine. See Korea AD 

Initiation Checklist. 

We adjusted Petitioner’s calculated 

factory overhead to eliminate double 

counting of depreciation and 

amortization. We applied the SG&A rate 

to COM inclusive of factory overhead. 

We also adjusted Petitioner’s calculation 

of the financial expense ratio to include 

interest income as a reduction to 

financial expense. See Korea AD 

Initiation Checklist for a full description 

of Petitioner’s methodology and the 

adjustments the Department made to 

those calculations. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by 

Petitioner, and adjusted by the 

Department as described above, there is 

sufficient basis to find that imports of 

glycine from India, Japan, and Korea are 

being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value. 

Based on comparisons of EP to home 

market prices and CV in India and 

Japan, and to CV for Korea, which were 

calculated in accordance with section 

773(a)(4) of the Act, the dumping 

margins for glycine range from 5.67 to 

121.62 percent for India, 70.21 to 280.57 

percent for Japan, and 138.37 to 138.83 

for Korea. 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations 

Based upon the examination of the 

Petitions on glycine from India, Japan, 

and Korea, the Department finds that 

the Petitions meet the requirements of 

section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are 

initiating antidumping duty 

investigations to determine whether 

imports of glycine from India, Japan, 

and Korea are being, or are likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value. In accordance with section 

733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, unless 

postponed, we will make our 

preliminary determinations no later 

than 140 days after the date of this 

initiation. 

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions 

In accordance with section 

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, copies of the 

public versions of the Petitions have 

been provided to the representatives of 

the Governments of India, Japan, and 

Korea. We will attempt to provide a 

copy of the public version of the 

Petitions to the foreign producers/ 

exporters named in the Petitions. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

We have notified the International 

Trade Commission of our initiations, as 

required by section 732(d) of the Act. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
20820 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / Notices 

1Section A of the questionnaire requests general 

information concerning a company’s corporate 

structure and business practices, the merchandise 

under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 

which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. 

Section B requests a complete listing of all home 

market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, 

of sales in the most appropriate third-country 

market (this section is not applicable to respondents 

in non-market economy (NME) cases). Section C 

requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D 

requests information on the cost of production 

(COP) of the foreign like product and the 

constructed value (CV) of the merchandise under 

investigation. 

Preliminary Determination by the 

International Trade Commission 

The International Trade Commission 

will preliminarily determine, no later 

than May 14, 2007, whether there is a 

reasonable indication that imports of 

glycine from India, Japan, and/or Korea 

are materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, a U.S. industry. A 

negative ITC determination with respect 

to any of the investigations will result 

in that investigation being terminated; 

otherwise, these investigations will 

proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: April 19, 2007. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–8017 Filed 4–25–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–357–818] 

Lemon Juice from Argentina: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a petition filed 

by Sunkist Growers, Inc. (Petitioner), 

the U.S. Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is conducting an 

antidumping duty investigation of sales 

to the United States of lemon juice from 

Argentina for the period July 1, 2005 

through June 30, 2006. See Notice of 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations: Lemon Juice from 

Argentina and Mexico, 71 FR 61710 

(October 19, 2006) (Initiation Notice). 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that lemon juice from 

Argentina is being, or is likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value (LTFV), as provided in section 

733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). The estimated 

margins of sales at LTFV are listed in 

the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section 

of this notice. Moreover, we 

preliminarily determine that critical 

circumstances exist with regard to 

imports of lemon juice from Argentina. 

See the ‘‘Critical Circumstances’’ section 

below. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on this preliminary 

determination. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 26, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Hoadley or Joshua Reitze, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3148, or (202) 

482–0666, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

This investigation was initiated on 

October 19, 2006. See Initiation Notice. 

Since the initiation of the investigation, 

the following events have occurred. On 

November 6, 2006, the United States 

International Trade Commission (ITC) 

preliminarily determined that there is a 

reasonable indication that imports of the 

products subject to this investigation are 

materially injuring an industry in the 

United States producing the domestic 

like product. See Lemon Juice from 

Argentina and Mexico, 71 FR 66795 

(November 16, 2006) (ITC Preliminary 

Determination). 

On November 7, 2006, the Department 

selected Citrusvil, S.A. (Citrusvil) and 

S.A. San Miguel A.G.I.C.y F. (San 

Miguel) as the respondents in this 

investigation. See ‘‘Respondent 

Selection’’ section below. On November 

7, 2006, the Department issued a letter 

providing interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on a proposed 

set of model–match criteria. We 

received comments in response to this 

letter from Petitioner, Citrusvil, and San 

Miguel on November 13, 2006. Based on 

our analysis of these submissions, we 

determined the appropriate model–

match characteristics. See Memorandum 

to Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office 6, 

and Laurie Parkhill, Director, Office 5, 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigations of 

Lemon Juice from Argentina and 

Mexico: Selection of Model Matching 

Criteria’’ (November 20, 2006). 

The Department issued sections A - D 

of the questionnaire to Citrusvil and San 

Miguel on November 20, 2006.1

Citrusvil submitted its response to 

section A on December 18, 2007. 

Citrusvil submitted its response to 

sections B and C on January 17, 2007, 

and its section D response on January 

22, 2007. San Miguel submitted its 

response to section A on December 14, 

2006, responses to sections B and C on 

January 16, 2007, and its response to 

section D on March 12, 2007. 

On January 5, 2007, Petitioner 

submitted comments on Citrusvil’s 

section A response. The Department 

issued a supplemental section A 

questionnaire to Citrusvil on January 16, 

2007. We received Citrusvil’s 

supplemental section A response on 

January 26, 2007. On January 31, 2007, 

Petitioner submitted a German–specific, 

sales–below-cost allegation. Citrusvil 

did not rebut this allegation. On 

February 1, 2007, we issued a 

supplemental section D questionnaire to 

Citrusvil, to which Citrusvil responded 

on February 23, 2007. On February 9, 

2007, and again on March 6, 2007, 

Petitioner submitted comments on 

Citrusvil’s section D response. On 

January 30, 2007, Petitioner submitted 

comments on Citrusvil’s section B and 

C response. The Department issued a 

supplemental section B and C 

questionnaire to Citrusvil on February 5, 

2007. We received Citrusvil’s 

supplemental section B and C response 

on March 9, 2007. Citrusvil submitted 

corrections to its section B and C 

response on April 4, 2007. On February 

9, 2007, Petitioner submitted comments 

concerning possible affiliation issues 

between Citrusvil and its German sales 

agent. On February 16, 2007, the 

Department sent a general supplemental 

questionnaire to Citrusvil, to which 

Citrusvil responded on March 12, 2007. 

On March 15, we sent Citrusvil a second 

supplemental section D questionnaire, 

to which Citrusvil responded on April 

5, 2007. On March 23, 2007, we sent 

Citrusvil a request for additional sales 

information, to which Citrusvil partially 

responded on April 9, 2007. 

Petitioner submitted its comments on 

San Miguel’s section A response on 

January 29, 2007. On January 12, 2007, 

the Department issued a supplemental 

section A questionnaire to San Miguel. 

Petitioner filed a sales–below-cost 

allegation on January 24, 2007 with 

respect to San Miguel’s sales in 

Argentina. On February 23, 2007, 

Petitioner submitted comments to San 

Miguel’s section B and C response. The 

Department issued a supplemental 

section A to San Miguel on January 16, 

2007, supplemental sections B and C on 

January 31, 2007, and a supplemental 

section D on March 16, 2007. San 

Miguel responded to the supplemental 

section A on January 23, 2007, 

supplemental sections B and C on 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES