16180 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Notices 

collects comprehensive quarterly data 

on foreign airline operators’ revenues 

and expenses in the United States. 

There are no changes proposed to the 

form or instructions. 

II. Method of Collection 

The survey forms will be sent to 

respondents each quarter via U.S. mail; 

the surveys are also available from our 

Web site. Respondents return the 

surveys one of four ways: U.S. mail, 

electronically using BEA’s electronic 

collection system (eFile), fax or e-mail. 

Responses will be due within 50 days 

after the close of each calendar quarter. 

III. Data 

OMB Number: 0608–0068. 

Form Number: BE–9. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Businesses or other 

for-profit organizations. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

240. 

Estimated Time per Response: 8 

hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 1,920. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $0. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the Agency, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of 

the Agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: April 3, 2009. 

Glenna Mickelson, 

Management Analyst, Office of Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–8032 Filed 4–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–405–803] 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

Finland; Notice of Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

Aqualon Company, a division of 

Hercules Inc., (the petitioner) and 

respondents CP Kelco OY and CP Kelco 

U.S., Inc. (collectively, CP Kelco), the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on purified 

carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from 

Finland. The review covers exports of 

the subject merchandise to the United 

States produced by CP Kelco. The 

period of review (POR) is July 1, 2007, 

through June 30, 2008. 

We preliminarily find that CP Kelco 

made sales at less than normal value 

(NV) during the POR. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of this review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 

duties based on differences between the 

export price (EP) or constructed export 

price (CEP) and NV. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 2009 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tyler Weinhold or Robert James, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1121 or (202) 482– 

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department published the 

antidumping duty order on CMC from 

Finland on 

July 11, 2005. See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Orders: Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden, 

70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005). On July 11, 

2008, the Department published the 

notice of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of CMC from 

Finland for the period July 1, 2007, 

through June 30, 2008. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 39948 

(July 11, 2008). 

On July 11, 2008, CP Kelco requested 

an administrative review for July 1, 

2007, through June 30, 2008. On July 14, 

2008, the petitioner requested a review 

of CP Kelco for the same period. On 

August 26, 2008, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of initiation of this antidumping 

duty administrative review. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 73 FR 50308 (August 26, 2008). 

On October 3, 2008, the Department 

issued its standard antidumping 

questionnaire (the antidumping 

questionnaire) to CP Kelco. CP Kelco 

submitted its response to section A of 

the Department’s antidumping 

questionnaire on September 30, 2008 

(CP Kelco’s Section A Response). CP 

Kelco submitted its response to sections 

B and C of the antidumping 

questionnaire on October 20, 2008 (CP 

Kelco’s Sections B and C Response). 

Because the Department disregarded 

sales at prices below the cost of 

production in the most recently 

completed administrative review as of 

the initiation of the instant review, we 

are conducting a sales-at-below-cost 

investigation in this review. See Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland; 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 44106 (August 7, 2007) 

(unchanged in Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

70568 (December 12, 2007). 

Accordingly, CP Kelco submitted its 

response to section D of the 

antidumping questionnaire on October 

31, 2008 (CP Kelco’s Section D 

Response). 

On November 10, 2008, the 

Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to CP Kelco regarding its 

responses to sections A, B, and C of the 

antidumping questionnaire. CP Kelco 

submitted its response to the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaire on December 2, 2008 (CP 

Kelco’s Supplemental Sections A, B, 

and C Response). 

On January 5, 2009, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

CP Kelco regarding its responses to 

section D of the antidumping 

questionnaire. CP Kelco submitted its 

response to the Department’s 

supplemental questionnaire on January 

22, 2009 (CP Kelco’s Supplemental 

Section D Response). On January 27, 

2009, CP Kelco submitted data and 

electronic versions of exhibits from CP 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Notices 16181 

Kelco’s Supplemental Section D 

Response. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order is all purified 

carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), 

sometimes also referred to as purified 

sodium CMC, polyanionic cellulose, or 

cellulose gum, which is a white to offwhite, non-toxic, odorless, 

biodegradable powder, comprising 

sodium CMC that has been refined and 

purified to a minimum assay of 90 

percent. Purified CMC does not include 

unpurified or crude CMC, CMC 

Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, and 

CMC that is cross-linked through heat 

treatment. Purified CMC is CMC that 

has undergone one or more purification 

operations which, at a minimum, reduce 

the remaining salt and other by-product 

portion of the product to less than ten 

percent. The merchandise subject to this 

order is classified in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States at 

subheading 3912.31.00. This tariff 

classification is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes; 

however, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of CMC in 

the United States were made at less than 

NV, we compared U.S. price to NV, as 

described in the ‘‘Export Price,’’ 

‘‘Constructed Export Price,’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. 

In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Tariff Act), we calculated monthly 

weighted-average NVs and compared 

these to individual U.S. transactions. 

Because we determined CP Kelco made 

both EP and CEP sales during the POR, 

we used both EP and CEP as the basis 

for U.S. price in our comparisons. We 

used the invoice date, as recorded in CP 

Kelco’s normal books and records, as 

the date of sale for CP Kelco’s EP, CEP, 

and home market sales. See 19 CFR 

351.401(i). For a more detailed 

discussion of these calculations, see 

Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold, to 

the File, ‘‘Analysis of Data Submitted by 

CP Kelco Oy and CP Kelco U.S. Inc. 

(collectively, CP Kelco) in the 

Preliminary Results of the 2007–2008 

Administrative Review of Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from 

Finland,’’ dated March 27, 2009 

(Preliminary Analysis Memorandum). 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Tariff Act, we considered all 

products produced by CP Kelco covered 

by the description in the ‘‘Scope of the 

Order’’ section, above, and sold in the 

home market during the POR, to be 

foreign like products for purposes of 

determining appropriate product 

comparisons to U.S. sales. We relied on 

five characteristics to match U.S. sales 

of subject merchandise to home market 

sales of the foreign like product (listed 

in order of priority): 1) grade; 2) 

viscosity; 3) degree of substitution; 4) 

particle size; and 5) solution gel 

characteristics. See the antidumping 

questionnaire at Appendix 5. Where 

there were no sales of identical 

merchandise in the home market to 

compare to U.S. sales, we compared 

U.S. sales to the next most similar 

foreign like product on the basis of these 

product characteristics and the 

reporting instructions listed in the 

antidumping questionnaire. Because 

there were sales of identical or similar 

merchandise in the home market 

suitable for comparison to each U.S. 

sale, we did not compare any U.S. sales 

to constructed value (CV). 

Export Price 

Section 772(a) of the Tariff Act 

defines EP as ‘‘the price at which the 

subject merchandise is first sold (or 

agreed to be sold) before the date of 

importation by the producer or exporter 

of subject merchandise outside of the 

United States to an unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States or to an 

unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 

the United States,’’ as adjusted under 

section 772(c). In accordance with 

section 772(a) of the Tariff Act, we used 

EP for a number of CP Kelco’s U.S. 

sales. We preliminarily find that these 

sales are properly classified as EP sales 

because these sales were made before 

the date of importation and were sales 

made directly to unaffiliated U.S. 

customers, and because our CEP 

methodology was not otherwise 

warranted. 

We based EP on the prices to 

unaffiliated customers in the United 

States. We made adjustments for price 

or billing adjustments and discounts, 

where applicable. We also made 

deductions for movement expenses in 

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

the Tariff Act, which included, where 

appropriate, foreign inland freight, 

international freight, marine insurance, 

and U.S. brokerage and handling. 

Additionally, we made adjustments for 

direct selling expenses (credit expenses) 

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

of the Tariff Act. 

CP Kelco incurred certain expenses as 

a result of factoring certain sales (i.e., 

selling the accounts receivable 

associated with those sales to an 

affiliated financial institution in 

exchange for an immediate payment). 

For factored sales, we made an 

adjustment to gross unit price based 

upon the difference between the face 

value of the accounts receivables 

factored and the immediate payment 

received upon the factoring of those 

receivables (factoring discount). 

We reduced movement expenses, 

where appropriate, by the amount of 

freight revenue paid by the customer to 

CP Kelco. In accordance with our 

practice in the recently completed 

administrative review of polyethylene 

retail carrier bags from the People’s 

Republic of China, we capped the 

amount of freight revenue deducted at 

no greater than the amount of movement 

expenses in the home market. See 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 6857 

(February 11, 2009) (Bags from the 

PRC). As the Department explained in 

Bags from the PRC, section 772 (c)(1) of 

the Tariff Act provides that the 

Department shall increase the price 

used to establish either export price or 

constructed export price in only the 

following three instances: (A) when not 

included in such price, the cost of all 

containers and coverings and all other 

costs, charges, and expenses incident to 

placing the subject merchandise in 

condition packed ready for shipment to 

the United States; (B) the amount of any 

import duties imposed by the country of 

exportation which have been rebated, or 

which have not been collected, by 

reason of the exportation of the subject 

merchandise to the United States; and 

(C) the amount of any countervailing 

duty imposed on the subject 

merchandise under subtitle A to offset 

an export subsidy. In addition, section 

351.401(c) of the Department’s 

regulations directs the Department to 

use a price in the calculation of U.S. 

price which is net of any price 

adjustments that are reasonably 

attributable to the subject merchandise. 

The term ‘‘price adjustments’’ is defined 

under 19 CFR 351.102(b) as a ‘‘change 

in the price charged for subject 

merchandise or the foreign like product, 

such as discounts, rebates, and post-sale 

adjustments, that are reflected in the 

purchaser’s net outlay.’’ 

In past cases, we have declined to 

treat freight-related revenues as addition 

to U.S. price under section 772(c) of the 

Tariff Act or price adjustments under 19 

CFR 351.102(b). Rather, we have 

incorporated these revenues as offsets to 

movement expenses because they relate 

to the transportation of subject 

merchandise. See, e.g., Stainless Steel 

Wire Rod from Sweden: Preliminary 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
16182 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Notices 

1See EP section, above. 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 51414 

(September 7, 2007) (unchanged in 

Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 12950 

(March 1, 2008)). 

Further, our offset practice limits the 

granting of an offset to situations where 

a respondent incurs expenses and 

realized revenue for the same type of 

activity. See Stainless Steel Wire Rod 

from Sweden: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 51414, 51415. According 

to CP Kelco’s responses, freight 

revenues are revenues received from 

customers for invoice items covering 

transportation expenses, and arise when 

freight is not included in the selling 

price under the applicable terms of 

delivery, but when CP Kelco arranges 

and prepays freight for the customer. 

See CP Kelco’s Section B Response at B– 

25 and CP Kelco’s Section C response at 

C–27. Therefore, we have limited the 

amount of the freight revenue used to 

offset CP Kelco’s movement expenses to 

the amount of movement expenses 

incurred on the sale of subject 

merchandise. See Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum at page 2. 

Constructed Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Tariff Act, CEP is ‘‘the price at 

which the subject merchandise is first 

sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United 

States before or after the date of 

importation by or for the account of the 

producer or exporter of such 

merchandise, or by a seller affiliated 

with the producer or exporter, to a 

purchaser not affiliated with the 

producer or exporter,’’ as adjusted 

under sections 772(c) and (d) of the 

Tariff Act. In accordance with section 

772(b) of the Tariff Act, we used CEP for 

a number of CP Kelco’s U.S. sales 

because CP Kelco sold merchandise to 

affiliate CP Kelco U.S., Inc. in the 

United States which, in turn, sold 

subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. 

customers. We preliminarily find that 

these U.S. sales are properly classified 

as CEP sales because they occurred in 

the United States and were made 

through CP Kelco U.S. Inc. to 

unaffiliated U.S. customers. 

We based CEP on the prices to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. We made adjustments for price 

or billing adjustments, early payment 

discounts, and factoring charges,1 where 

applicable. We also made deductions for 

movement expenses in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, 

which included, where appropriate, 

foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage 

and handling, international freight, 

marine insurance, customs duties, U.S. 

brokerage, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. 

warehousing expenses. We also reduced 

movement expenses, where appropriate, 

by the amount of freight revenue paid 

by the customer to CP Kelco. In 

accordance with our treatment of freight 

revenue on U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise (see ‘‘Export Price’’ 

section, above), we capped the amount 

of freight revenue deducted at no greater 

than the amount of movement expenses 

in the home market. In accordance with 

section 772(d)(1) of the Tariff Act, we 

deducted those selling expenses 

associated with economic activities 

occurring in the United States, 

including direct selling expenses 

(imputed credit expenses), inventory 

carrying costs, and indirect selling 

expenses. We also made an adjustment 

for profit in accordance with section 

772(d)(3) of the Tariff Act. 

Further-Manufactured U.S. Sales 

During the POR, CP Kelco made 

certain sales of subject merchandise to 

affiliated companies in the United 

States. See CP Kelco’s Section A 

Response at pages B–46 to B–48, and 

exhibit A–27. This merchandise was 

subsequently further manufactured by 

the U.S. affiliates into non-subject 

merchandise, which was then sold to 

unaffiliated U.S. customers. See CP 

Kelco’s Section A Response at pages A– 

46 to A–48. The total quantity of this 

material represented less than 10 

percent of CP Kelco’s total U.S. sales. Id. 

Section 772(e) of the Tariff Act 

provides that when the value added in 

the United States by an affiliated party 

is likely to exceed substantially the 

value of the subject merchandise, the 

Department shall use one of the 

following prices to determine CEP if 

there is a sufficient quantity of sales to 

provide a reasonable basis of 

comparison and the use of such sales is 

appropriate: (1) the price of identical 

subject merchandise sold by the 

exporter or producer to an unaffiliated 

person; or (2) the price of other subject 

merchandise sold by the exporter or 

producer to an unaffiliated person. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.402 

(c)(2), we conducted an analysis to 

determine whether the value added to 

the subject merchandise by the affiliated 

customers after importation in the 

United States was at least 65 percent of 

the price charged to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser for the merchandise as sold in 

the United States. See 19 CFR 

351.402(c)(2). Our analysis showed that 

the value added by the affiliated 

customers was significantly greater than 

65 percent. Therefore, we have 

preliminarily determined that the value 

added in the United States by the 

affiliated customers exceeds 

substantially the value of the subject 

merchandise. Id. See also CP Kelco’s 

Section A Response at pages A–46 to A– 

48, and exhibit A–27. 

We then considered whether there 

were sales of identical subject 

merchandise or other subject 

merchandise sold in sufficient 

quantities by the exporter or producer to 

an unaffiliated person that could 

provide a reasonable basis of 

comparison. In this case, there were 

sales of identical subject merchandise or 

other subject merchandise sold in 

sufficient quantities by CP Kelco U.S. to 

unaffiliated persons that could provide 

a reasonable basis for calculating CEP 

for CP Kelco’s sales of further 

manufactured merchandise. See 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 

page 1. 

Decisions as to the appropriate 

methodology for determining CEP for 

sales involving further manufacturing 

generally must be made on a case-bycase basis. See, e.g., Certain CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

from the Republic of Korea: Notice of 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 51584, 

51586 (September 10, 2007) (unchanged 

in final results, 73 FR 14220 (March 17, 

2008)). In the instant review, we find 

the quantity of sales of merchandise to 

unaffiliated customers is sufficiently 

large to serve as a reasonable basis for 

the calculation of CEP. The value added 

to the CMC after importation is very 

substantial and the further 

manufacturing very complex. Therefore, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.402(c)(3), and as 

in the 2006–2007 review of this order, 

we have used the preliminary weightedaverage dumping margins calculated on 

sales of other subject merchandise sold 

to unaffiliated persons to determine the 

dumping margins for furthermanufactures sales. See Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland; 

Notice of Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 45948, 45950 (August 7, 

2008) (unchanged in Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 75397 

(December 11, 2008)). 

Normal Value 

A. Selection of Comparison Market 

In order to determine whether there 

was a sufficient volume of sales in the 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Notices 16183 

2See EP section, above. 

home market to serve as a viable basis 

for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product was equal to or 

greater than five percent of the aggregate 

volume of U.S. sales), we compared the 

respondent’s volume of home market 

sales of the foreign like product to the 

volume of U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(1) of the Tariff Act. As CP 

Kelco’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 of the 

subject merchandise, we determined the 

home market was viable. Therefore, we 

have based NV on home market sales in 

the usual commercial quantities and in 

the ordinary course of trade. 

B. Cost of Production Analysis 

In accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act, we are 

conducting a sales-below-cost 

investigation in this review because the 

Department disregarded some of CP 

Kelco’s sales as having been made at 

prices below the cost of production in 

the previous administrative review. See 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

Finland, Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 70568 (December 12, 

2007). 

C. Calculation of Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Tariff Act, we calculated the 

weighted-average cost of production 

(COP) for each model based on the sum 

of CP Kelco’s materials and fabrication 

costs for the foreign like product, plus 

an amount for home market selling, 

general, and administrative (SG&A) 

expenses, financial expenses, and 

packing costs. We relied on the COP 

data submitted by CP Kelco. 

We compared the weighted-average 

COP of CP Kelco’s home market sales to 

home market sales prices of the foreign 

like product (net of billing adjustments, 

discounts, any applicable movement 

expenses, direct and indirect selling 

expenses, and packing), as required 

under section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, in 

order to determine whether these sales 

had been made at prices below the COP. 

In determining whether to disregard 

home market sales made at prices below 

the COP, we examined, in accordance 

with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the 

Tariff Act, whether such sales were 

made in substantial quantities within an 

extended period of time, and whether 

such sales were made at prices which 

would permit recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time. 

D. Results of the Cost Test 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the 

Tariff Act, where less than 20 percent of 

CP Kelco’s sales of a given model were 

at prices less than the COP, we did not 

disregard any below-cost sales of that 

model because these below-cost sales 

were not made in substantial quantities. 

Where 20 percent or more of CP Kelco’s 

home market sales of a given model 

were at prices less than the COP, we 

disregarded the below-cost sales 

because such sales were made: (1) 

within an extended period of time and 

in ‘‘substantial quantities’’ within the 

POR, in accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Tariff Act, 

and (2) at prices which would not 

permit recovery of all costs within a 

reasonable period of time, in accordance 

with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff 

Act (i.e., the sales were made at prices 

below the weighted-average per-unit 

COP for the POR). In this review, we 

have disregarded such sales from our 

margin calculation. We used the 

remaining sales as the basis for 

determining NV, if such sales existed, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 

Tariff Act. 

E. Price-to-Price Comparisons 

We calculated NV based on prices to 

unaffiliated customers. We made 

adjustments for billing adjustments, 

early payment discounts, rebates, and 

factoring charges,2 where appropriate. 

We made deductions, where 

appropriate, for foreign inland freight, 

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the 

Tariff Act. We also reduced foreign 

inland freight, where appropriate, by the 

amount of freight revenue paid by the 

customer to CP Kelco. In accordance 

with our treatment of freight revenue on 

U.S. sales of subject merchandise (see 

‘‘Export Price’’ section, above), we 

capped the amount of freight revenue 

deducted at no greater than the amount 

of movement expenses in the home 

market. In addition, when comparing 

sales of similar merchandise, we made 

adjustments for differences in cost (i.e., 

DIFMER), where those differences were 

attributable to differences in physical 

characteristics of the merchandise, 

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

the Tariff Act and section 351.411 of the 

Department’s regulations. We also made 

adjustments for differences in 

circumstances of sale (COS) in 

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

of the Tariff Act and section 351.410 of 

the Department’s regulations. We made 

COS adjustments for imputed credit 

expenses. We also made an adjustment, 

where appropriate, for the CEP offset in 

accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of 

the Tariff Act. See ‘‘Level of Trade and 

CEP Offset’’ section below. Finally, we 

deducted home market packing costs 

and added U.S. packing costs in 

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

and (B) of the Tariff Act. 

F. Constructed Value (CV) 

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) 

of the Tariff Act, we base NV on CV if 

we are unable to find a 

contemporaneous comparison market 

match of identical or similar 

merchandise for the U.S. sale. Section 

773(e) of the Tariff Act provides that CV 

shall be based on the sum of the cost of 

materials and fabrication employed in 

making the subject merchandise, SG&A 

expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. 

We calculated the cost of materials and 

fabrication for CP Kelco based on the 

methodology described in the COP 

section of this notice. In accordance 

with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff 

Act, we based SG&A expenses and 

profit on the amounts incurred and 

realized by CP Kelco in connection with 

the production and sale of the foreign 

like product in the ordinary course of 

trade, for consumption in the foreign 

country. However, for these preliminary 

results, we did not base NV on CV in 

any instances. 

Level of Trade and CEP Offset 

In accordance with section 

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

extent practicable, we base NV on sales 

made in the comparison market at the 

same level of trade (LOT) as the export 

transaction. The NV LOT is based on the 

starting price of sales in the home 

market or, when NV is based on CV, on 

the LOT of the sales from which SG&A 

expenses and profit are derived. 

With respect to CEP transactions in 

the U.S. market, the CEP LOT is defined 

as the level of trade of the constructed 

sale from the exporter to the importer. 

See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff 

Act. 

To determine whether NV sales are at 

a different LOT than CEP sales, we 

examine stages in the marketing process 

and selling functions along the chain of 

distribution between the producer and 

the customer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). 

If the comparison-market sales are at a 

different LOT, 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 LOT 

of the export transaction, we make a 

LOT adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. For CEP 

sales, if the NV LOT is more remote 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
16184 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Notices 

from the factory than the CEP LOT 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 Tariff Act (the 

CEP offset provision). See, e.g., Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes From 

Canada, 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 2002) 

and accompanying Issues and Decisions 

Memorandum at Comment 8; see also 

Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon 

Quality Steel Products from Brazil; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 

17406, 17410 (April 6, 2005) 

(unchanged in final results of review, 70 

FR 58683 (October 7, 2005)). For CEP 

sales, we consider only the selling 

activities reflected in the U.S. price after 

the deduction of expenses incurred in 

the U.S. and CEP profit under section 

772(d) of the Tariff Act. See Micron 

Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 

F.3d 1301, 1314–1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

We expect that if the claimed LOTs are 

the same, the functions and activities of 

the seller should be similar. Conversely, 

if a party claims the LOTs are different 

for different groups of sales, the 

functions and activities of the seller 

should be dissimilar. See Porcelain-onSteel Cookware from Mexico: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 

(May 10, 2000) and accompanying 

Issues and Decisions Memorandum at 

Comment 6. 

CP Kelco reported it sold CMC to end 

users and distributors in the home 

market and to end users and distributors 

in the United States. CP Kelco identified 

two channels of distribution for sales in 

both the home market and the U.S. 

market: end users (channel 1) and 

distributors (channel 2). See CP Kelco’s 

Section A Response at page A–16 to A– 

17, and CP Kelco’s Sections B and C 

Response at pages B–19 to B–20. CP 

Kelco claims that it does not sell other 

products at different levels of trade in 

the home market, including at a level of 

trade comparable to the CEP level of 

trade. CP Kelco claims that as a result, 

it cannot quantify a specific level of 

trade adjustment within the meaning of 

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

Therefore, CP Kelco requests the 

Department make an adjustment to NV 

for its CEP sales pursuant to section 

773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act (the CEP 

offset). See CP Kelco’s Section A 

Response at page A–32 to A–33, and CP 

Kelco’s Sections B and C Response at 

page B–20. 

The Department found in the previous 

review that there was only one LOT in 

the home market. See Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland; 

Notice of Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 45948, 45953 (August 7, 

2008) (unchanged in Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland; 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 75397 

(December 11, 2008)). Therefore, CP 

Kelco reported only one level of trade in 

its home market sales listing. See CP 

Kelco’s Section C Response at page C– 

20. 

As described above, CP Kelco made 

both direct (EP) sales of subject 

merchandise to U.S. customers and CEP 

sales of subject merchandise through its 

affiliate, CP Kelco U.S., Inc. CP Kelco 

reported that its EP sales to both end 

users and distributors were made at the 

same LOT as sales made to home market 

end users and distributors. See CP 

Kelco’s Section A Response at page A– 

33. However, CP Kelco reported that its 

CEP sales were made at a different LOT. 

Id. See also, CP Kelco’s Sections B and 

C Response at page B–20. 

We obtained information from CP 

Kelco regarding the marketing stages 

involved in making its reported home 

market and U.S. sales. CP Kelco 

described all selling activities 

performed, and provided a table 

comparing the selling functions 

performed among each channel of 

distribution for both markets. See CP 

Kelco’s Section A response at pages A– 

18 to A–31. We reviewed the nature of 

the selling functions and the intensity to 

which all selling functions were 

performed for each home market 

channel of distribution and customer 

category and between CP Kelco’s EP and 

home market channels of distribution 

and customer categories. 

While we found differences in the 

levels of intensity performed for some of 

these functions between the home 

market end user and distributor 

channels of distribution, such 

differences are minor and do not 

establish distinct and separate levels of 

trade in Finland. Based on our analysis 

of all of CP Kelco’s home market selling 

functions, we find all home market sales 

were made at the same LOT. Further, we 

find only minor differences between the 

sole home market LOT and that of CP 

Kelco’s EP sales. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine CP Kelco’s 

home market and EP sales were made at 

the same LOT. 

We then compared the NV LOT, based 

on the selling activities associated with 

the transactions between CP Kelco and 

its customers in the home market, to the 

CEP LOT, which is based on the selling 

activities associated with the transaction 

between CP Kelco and its affiliated 

importer, CP Kelco U.S., Inc. Our 

analysis indicates the selling functions 

performed for home market customers 

are either performed at a higher degree 

of intensity or are greater in number 

than the selling functions performed for 

CP Kelco U.S., Inc. For example, in 

comparing CP Kelco’s selling activities, 

we find most of the reported selling 

functions performed in the home market 

are not a part of CEP transactions (i.e., 

sales negotiations, credit risk 

management, collection, sales 

promotion, direct sales personnel, 

technical support, guarantees, and 

discounts). For those selling activities 

performed for both home market sales 

and CEP sales (i.e., customer care, 

logistics, inventory maintenance, 

packing, and freight/delivery), CP Kelco 

reported it performed each activity at 

either the same or at a higher level of 

intensity in one or both of the home 

market channels of distribution. For 

both the packing and the freight/ 

delivery selling functions, each function 

is performed at the same level of 

intensity in one home market channel of 

distribution, but at a lower level of 

intensity in the other home market 

channel of distribution. 

We note that CEP sales from CP Kelco 

to CP Kelco U.S., Inc. generally occur at 

the beginning of the distribution chain, 

representing essentially a logistical 

transfer of inventory. In contrast, all 

sales in the home market occur closer to 

the end of the distribution chain and 

involve smaller volumes and more 

customer interaction which, in turn, 

require the performance of more selling 

functions. Based on the foregoing, we 

conclude that the NV LOT is at a more 

advanced stage than the CEP LOT. 

Because we found the home market 

and U.S. CEP sales were made at 

different LOTs, we examined whether a 

LOT adjustment or a CEP offset may be 

appropriate in this review. As we found 

only one LOT in the home market, it 

was not possible to make a LOT 

adjustment to home market sales, 

because such an adjustment is 

dependent on our ability to identify a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between the home market sales on 

which NV is based and home market 

sales at the LOT of the CEP sales. See 

19 CFR 351.412(d)(1)(ii). Furthermore, 

we have no other information that 

provides an appropriate basis for 

determining a LOT adjustment. Because 

the data available do not form an 

appropriate basis for making a LOT 

adjustment, and because the NV LOT is 

at a more advanced stage of distribution 

than the CEP LOT, we have made a CEP 

offset to NV in accordance with section 

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


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Notices 16185 

Currency Conversions 

CP Kelco reported certain U.S. sales 

prices and certain U.S. expenses and 

adjustments in euros. Therefore, we 

made euro-U.S. dollar currency 

conversions, where appropriate, based 

on the exchange rates in effect on the 

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

the Federal Reserve Board, in 

accordance with section 773A(a) of the 

Tariff Act. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily find the following 

weighted-average dumping margin 

exists for the period July 1, 2007, 

through June 30, 2008: 

Manufacturer / Exporter 

Weighted Average 

Margin 

(percentage) 

CP Kelco ....................... 11.94% 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of publication of this notice 

in accordance with section 351.224(b) of 

the Department’s regulations. An 

interested party may request a hearing 

within thirty days of publication. See 

section 351.310(c) of the Department’s 

regulations. Any hearing, if requested, 

will be held 37 days after the date of 

publication, or the first business day 

thereafter, unless the Department alters 

the date pursuant to section 351.310(d) 

of the Department’s regulations. 

Requests should contain the party’s 

name, address, and telephone number, 

the number of participants, and a list of 

the issues to be discussed. At the 

hearing, each party may make an 

affirmative presentation only on issues 

raised in that party’s case brief and may 

make rebuttal presentations only on 

arguments included in that party’s 

rebuttal brief. 

Comments 

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs no later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results of review. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to 

issues raised in the case briefs, may be 

filed no later than 35 days after the date 

of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). Parties who submit 

arguments in these proceedings 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. Further, parties 

submitting written comments should 

provide the Department with an 

additional copy of the public version of 

any such comments on diskette. The 

Department will issue final results of 

this administrative review, including 

the results of our analysis of the issues 

in any such written comments or at a 

hearing, within 120 days of publication 

of these preliminary results. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. Upon 

completion of this administrative 

review, pursuant to section 351.212(b) 

of the Department’s regulations, the 

Department will calculate an assessment 

rate on all appropriate entries. CP Kelco 

has reported entered values for all of its 

sales of subject merchandise to the U.S. 

during the POR. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 351.212(b)(1) of 

the Department’s regulations, we will 

calculate importer-specific duty 

assessment rates on the basis of the ratio 

of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

to the total entered value of the 

examined sales of that importer. These 

rates will be assessed uniformly on all 

entries the respective importers made 

during the POR. Where the assessment 

rate is above de minimis, we will 

instruct CBP to assess duties on all 

entries of subject merchandise by that 

importer. The Department will issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP fifteen days after 

publication of the final results of 

review. 

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). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by the respondent for which 

it did not know its merchandise was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate un-reviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. Id. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Furthermore, the following deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

completion of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of CMC from Finland 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 Tariff Act: 1) the 

cash deposit rate for CP Kelco will be 

the rate established in the final results 

of review; 2) if the exporter is not a firm 

covered in this review or the less-thanfair-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 3) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 

covered in this or any previous review 

conducted by the Department, the cash 

deposit rate will be the all-others rate of 

6.65 percent ad valorem from the LTFV 

investigation. See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Orders: Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Mexico, the Netherlands and Sweden, 

70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005). These 

deposit 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 the antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: April 2, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–8113 Filed 4–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

North American Free-Trade 

Agreement, Article 1904 Binational 

Panel Reviews: Notice of Termination 

of Panel Review 

AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United 

States Section, International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Termination of Panel 

Review of the Final Results of Full 

Sunset Review made by the 

International Trade Commission, 

respecting Gray Portland Cement and 

Clinker from Mexico, Secretariat File 

No. USA–MEX–2000–1904–10. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the negotiated 

settlement between the United States 

and Mexican industries, the panel 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES