25826 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–475–703]

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin

From Italy; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administration

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the

petitioner, the Department of Commerce

is conducting an administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on

gramdular polytetrafluoroethylene resin

from Italy. This review covers Ausimont

SpA. The period of review is August 1,

1996, through July 31, 1997.

We have preliminary determined that

sales of polytetrafluoroethylene resin

from Italy have been at less then normal

value. We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit comments in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

each argument: (1) A statement of the

issue, and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATES: May 11, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magd Zalok or Kris Campbell, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4162 or (202) 482–

3813, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the regulations provided in 19 CFR Part

351, as published in the Federal

Register on May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27296).

Background

On August 30, 1988, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

antidumping duty order on granular

polytetrafluoroethylene resin (PTFE)

from Italy (53 FR 33163). On August 4,

1997, the Department of published a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review’’ of this

antidumping duty order for the period

of August 1, 1996, through July 31, 1997

(62 FR 41925). On August 28, 1997, we

received a timely request for review

from E.I. DuPont de Nemours &

Company (the petitioner). The review

request named one respondent,

Ausimont SpA and Ausimont USA Inc.

(collectively, Ausimont). On September

25, 1997, we published the notice of

initiation of this review (62 FR 50292).

We issued a questionnaire to

Ausimont on September 24, 1997,

followed by a supplemental

questionnaire on February 23, 1998. On

December 19, 1997, the petitioner

submitted a timely request for

verification of Ausimont’s response.

Verification

In accordance with section 782(i)(3) of

the Act, we conducted a verification of

Ausimont’s response from April 6

through April 14, 1998, in Bollate, Italy,

and in Thorofare, New Jersey (see

Verification of the Responses of

Ausimont SpA and Ausimont U.S.A. in

the 1996/97 Administrative Review of

Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin

from Italy, May 4, 1998).

Scope of the Review

The product covered by this review is

granular PTFE resin, filled or unfilled.

This order also covers PTFE wet raw

polymer exported from Italy to the

United States. See Granular

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from

Italy; Final Determination of

Circumvention of Antidumping Duty

Order, 58 FR 26100 (April 30, 1993).

This order excludes PTFE dispersions in

water and fine powders. During the

period covered by this review, such

merchandise was classified under item

number 3904.61.00 of the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTS). We are providing this HTS

number for convenience and Customs

purposes only. The written description

of the scope remains dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

We compared the constructed export

price (CEP) to the normal value (NV), as

described in the Constructed Export

Price and Normal Value sections of this

notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of

the Act, we compared the CEPs of

individual transactions to

contemporaneous monthly weightedaverage prices of sales of the foreign like

product.

We first attempted to compare

contemporaneous sales of products sold

in the U.S. and the comparison market

that were identical with respect to the

following characteristics: type, filler,

percentage of filler, and grade. Where

we were unable to compare sales of

identical merchandise, we compared

U.S. sales with comparison market sales

of the most similar merchandise based

on the characteristics listed above, in

that order of priority. With respect to

U.S. sales of imported wet raw polymer

that further manufactured into finished

PTFE resin (see Constructed Export

Price, below), we limited our pricebased comparisons to comparison

market sales of wet raw polymer.

Where there were no appropriate

comparison market sales of comparable

merchandise, we compared the

merchandise sold in the United States to

constructed value (CV), in accordance

with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

Constructed Export Price

For all sales to the United States, we

calculated constructed export price

(CEP) as defined in section 772(b) of the

Act because all sales to unaffiliated

parties were made after importation of

the subject merchandise into the United

States through Ausimont U.S.A.,

respondent’s affiliate. We based CEP on

the packed, delivered prices to

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States (the starting price). We made

deductions for movement expenses, in

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

the Act, including international freight

marine insurance, brokerage and

handling, U.S. inland freight, other

transportation expenses, and U.S.

customs duties.

In accordance with section 772(d)(1)

of the Act, we deducted selling

expenses incurred by the affiliated seller

in connection with economic activity in

the United States. These expenses

include credit, warranty, technical

service, inventory carrying costs, and

indirect expenses incurred by Ausimont

USA.

With respect to sales involving

imported wet raw polymer that was

further manufactured into finished

PTFE resin in the United States, we

deducted the cost of such further

manufacturing in accordance with

section 772(d)(2) of the Act. We

determined that the special rule for

merchandise with value added after

importation under section 772(e) of the

Act did not apply to such sales because

the value added in the United States by

the affiliated person did not exceed

substantially the value of the subject

merchandise.

Finally, we made an adjustment for

the profit allocated to the abovereferenced selling and further

manufacturing expenses, in accordance

with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 25827

1See 62 FR 48592, September 16, 1997 (final

results) and 62 FR 26283, May 13, 1997

(preliminary results).

No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales of

granular PTFE resin in the home market

to serve as a viable basis for calculating

normal value (NV), we compared

Ausimont’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) of the Act. Because the

aggregate volume of home market sales

of the foreign like product was greater

than five percent of the respective

aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the

subject merchandise, we determined

that the home market provides a viable

basis for calculating NV. Therefore, in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Act, we based NV on the prices

at which the foreign like product was

first sold for consumption in the

exporting country, in the usual

commercial quantities and in the

ordinary course of trade.

We determined home prices net of

price adjustments (early payment

discounts and rebates). Where

applicable, we made adjustments for

packing and movement expenses, in

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

and (B) of the Act. In order to adjust for

differences in packing between the two

markets, we deducted home market

packing costs from NV and added U.S.

packing costs. We also made

adjustments for differences in costs

attributable to differences in physical

characteristics of the merchandise,

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

the Act, and for other differences in the

circumstances of sale (COS) in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii)

of the Act. We made a COS adjustment

for home market credit expense.

As noted above, we determined

normal value based on CV where there

were no appropriate home market sales

for comparison with the U.S. sale. We

calculated CV in accordance with

section 773(e) of the Act. We included

the cost of materials and fabrication,

selling, general and administrative

(SG&A) expenses, and profit. In

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of

the Act, we based SG&A expenses and

profit on the amounts incurred and

realized by Ausimont in connection

with the production and sale of the

foreign like product in the ordinary

course of trade for consumption in Italy.

For selling expenses, we used the

weighted-average home market selling

expenses. We included U.S. packing

pursuant to section 773(e)(3) of the Act.

Where appropriate, we made

adjustments to CV, in accordance with

section 773(a)(8) of the Act, for

differences in the COS. Specifically, we

made a COS adjustment by deducting

home market credit. We also made a

CEP-offset adjustment to NV for indirect

selling expenses pursuant to section

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act as discussed

below.

Level of Trade/CEP Offset

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine NV based on

sales at the same level of trade in the

comparison market as the level of trade

of the U.S. sales. The NV level of trade

is that of the starting-price sales in the

comparison market. For CEP sales, such

as those made by Ausimont in this

review, the U.S. level of trade is the

level of the constructed sale from the

exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different level of trade than that of the

U.S. 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 level of trade and

the difference affects price

comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which NV is based

and comparison-market sales at the

level of trade of the export transaction,

we make a level-of-trade adjustment

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

Finally, 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 the levels

between NV and CEP affects price

comparability, we adjust NV under

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

In implementing these principles in

this review, we obtained information

from Ausimont about the marketing

stage involved in the reported U.S. sales

and the home market sales, including a

description of the selling activities

performed by Ausimont for each

channel of distribution. In identifying

levels of trade for CEP and for home

market sales, we considered the selling

functions reflected in the CEP, after the

deduction of expenses and profit under

section 772(d) of the Act, and those

reflected in the home market starting

price before making any adjustments.

We expect that, if claimed levels of

trade are the same, the functions and

activities of the seller should be similar.

Conversely, if a party claims that levels

of trade are different for different groups

of sales, the functions and activities of

the seller should be dissimilar.

The record evidence before us in this

review indicates that the home market

and the CEP levels of trade have not

changed from the 1995–96 review.1 As

in prior segments of the proceeding, we

determined that for Ausimont there was

one home market level of trade and one

U.S. level of trade (i.e., the CEP level of

trade). In the home market, Ausimont

sold directly to fabricators. These sales

primarily entailed selling activities such

as inventory maintenance, technical

services, strategic and economic

planning, market research, computer

assistance and business system

development assistance, personnel

training, engineering services, and

delivery services.

In determining the level of trade for

the U.S. sales, we only considered the

selling activities reflected in the price

after making the appropriate

adjustments under section 772(d) of the

Act. (See, e.g. Certain Stainless Wire

Rods From France: Final Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review,

61 FR 47874, 47879–80 (Sept. 11, 1996).

The CEP level of trade involves minimal

selling functions (e.g., invoicing). Based

on a comparison of the home market

level of trade and this CEP level of

trade, we find the home market sales to

be at a different level of trade from, and

more remote from the factory than, the

CEP sales.

As noted above, all of the Ausimont’s

home market sales were at a single level

of trade which is different from the CEP

level of trade. Section 773(a)(7)(A) of the

Act directs us to make an adjustment for

difference in levels of trade where such

differences affect price comparability.

However, we were unable to quantify

such price differences from information

on the record. Because we have

determined that the home-market level

of trade is more remote from the factory

than the CEP level of trade but the data

necessary to calculate a level-of-trade

adjustment are unavailable, we made a

CEP-offset adjustment to NV pursuant to

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

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions based

on the official exchange rates in effect

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

by the Federal Reserve Bank of New

York. Section 773A(a) of the Act directs

the Department to use a daily exchange

rate in order to convert foreign
25828 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the

daily rate involves a fluctuation. In

accordance with our practice, we have

determined as a general matter that a

fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from a benchmark

by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is

defined as the rolling average of rates for

the past 40 business days. When we

determine a fluctuation exists, we

substitute the benchmark for the daily

rate. See Policy Bulletin 96–1 Currency

Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 8,

1996).

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margin exists:

Manufacturer/exporter Period Margin

(percent)

Ausimont S.p.A .................................................................................................................................................. 08/01/96–07/31/97 40.90

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 30 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the date of publication, or the

first workday thereafter. Case briefs and/

or written comments from interested

parties may be submitted not later than

30 days after the date of publication.

Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in

the case briefs and comments, may be

filed not later than 37 days after the date

of publication. Parties who submit

arguments in this proceeding are

requested to submit with each

argument: (1) A statement of the issue

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument. The Department will issue

the final results of the administrative

review, including the results of its

analysis of issues raised in any such

written comments or at a hearing,

within 120 days of issuance of these

preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

Because the inability to link sales with

specific entries prevents calculation of

duties on an entry-by-entry basis, we

have calculated an importer-specific ad

valorem duty assessment rate for the

merchandise based on the ratio of the

total amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales made

during the POR to the total customs

value of the sales used to calculate these

duties. This rate will be assessed

uniformly on all entries of that

particular importer made during the

POR. (This is equivalent to dividing the

total amount of antidumping duties,

which are calculated by taking the

difference between NV and CEP, by the

total CEP value of the sales compared,

and adjusting the result by the average

difference between CEP and customs

value for all merchandise examined

during the POR.) Individual differences

between CEP and NV may vary from the

percentage stated above. Upon

completion of this review, the

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to Customs. The

final results of this review shall be the

basis for the assessment of antidumping

dumping duties on entries of

merchandise covered by the

determination and for future deposits of

estimated duties.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of PTFE resin from Italy entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of this

administrative review, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rate for Ausimont will be the

rate established in the final results of

administrative review; (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in this review

but covered in the original less than fair

value (LTFV) investigations or a

previous review, the cash deposit will

continue to be the most recent rate

published in the final determination or

final results for which the manufacturer

or exporter received a company-specific

rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm

covered in this review, a previous

review, or the original investigation, but

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit

rate will be that established for the

manufacturer of the merchandise in the

final results of this review or the LTFV

investigation; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous review,

the cash deposit rate will be 46.46

percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established

in the LTFV investigation (50 FR 26019,

June 24, 1985).

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility 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

the 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 in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19

CFR 353.22(1996).

Dated: May 4, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–12318 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–427–009]

Industrial Nitrocellulose from France:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the

petitioner, Hercules Incorporated, the

Department of Commerce is conducting

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on industrial

nitrocellulose from France. The review

covers Bergerac, N.C. (formerly

identified by the name of its parent

company, Societe Nationale des Poudres

et Explosifs), and its affiliates for the

period August 1, 1996, through July 31,

1997.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales for Bergerac, N.C., have been

made below normal value. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of administrative review,

we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit comments in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

each argument (1) a statement of the