67412 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

frustrate implementation of a proposed 

agency action. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(9)(B)) 

In addition, part of the discussion will 

relate solely to the internal personnel 

and organizational issues of the BBG or 

the International Broadcasting Bureau. 

(5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(2) and (6)). 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Persons interested in obtaining more 

information should contact either 

Brenda Hardnett or Carol Booker at 

(202) 203–4545. 

Dated: November 1, 2005. 

Carol Booker, 

Legal Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 05–22236 Filed 11–3–05; 12:39 pm] 

BILLING CODE 8230–01–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–899 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Certain Artist 

Canvas from the People’s Republic of 

China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2005. 

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine 

that artist canvas from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) is being, or 

is likely to be, sold in the United States 

at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as 

provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The 

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 

shown in the ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’ section of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon 

Freed or Michael Holton, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3818 or 482–1324, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

On March 31, 2005, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a 

Petition on imports of certain artist 

canvas from the PRC (‘‘Petition’’) filed 

in proper form by Tara Materials Inc. 

(‘‘Tara’’ or ‘‘Petitioner’’) on behalf of the 

domestic industry and workers 

producing certain artist canvas. On 

April 7, 2005, the Department clarified 

that the official filing date for the 

Petition was April 1, 2005, and that the 

proper period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

July 1, 2004, through December 31, 

2004. See Memorandum from Edward 

Yang to Barbara Tillman: Decision 

Memo Concerning Petition Filing Date 

and Period of Investigation, April 7, 

2005. On April 7, 2005, and April 14, 

2005, the Department requested 

clarification of certain areas of the 

Petition and received responses to those 

requests on April 12, 2005, April 15, 

2005, and April 18, 2005. This 

investigation was initiated on April 28, 

2005. See Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty Investigation: Certain Artist 

Canvas from the People’s Republic of 

China, 70 FR 21996 (April 28, 2005) 

(‘‘Notice of Initiation’’). Additionally, in 

the Notice of Initiation, the Department 

applied the modified process by which 

exporters and producers may obtain 

separate–rate status in NME 

investigations. The new process requires 

exporters and producers to submit a 

separate–rate status application. See 

Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate–Rates 

Practice and Application of 

Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations involving Non–Market 

Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005), 

(‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’) available at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05–

1.pdf. However, the standard for 

eligibility for a separate rate (which is 

whether a firm can demonstrate an 

absence of both de jure and de facto 

governmental control over its export 

activities) has not changed. 

On April 28, 2005, the Department 

requested quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’) 

information from a total of six producers 

of artist canvas in the PRC which were 

identified in the petition and for which 

the Department was able to locate 

contact information. On April 28, 2005, 

the Department also sent the 

Government of the PRC a letter 

requesting assistance in locating all 

known Chinese producers/exporters of 

artist canvas who exported artist canvas 

to the United States during the POI, July 

1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. In 

addition, on May 11, 2005, in response 

to a request from ColArt Americas Inc. 

(‘‘ColArt’’), the Department requested 

Q&V information from ColArt. 

On May 16, 2005, the Department 

received Q&V responses from four 

Chinese producers/exporters of artist 

canvas: Hangzhou Haili Electronic 

Equipment Co., Ltd. (‘‘Haili’’); ColArt; 

Ningbo Conda Import & Export Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Ningbo Conda’’); and Wuxi Phoenix 

Artist Materials Co., Ltd. (‘‘Phoenix 

Materials’’). On May 16, 2005, the 

Department also received a Q&V 

response from Textus Industries stating 

that it is a U.S. importer and it is not 

a producer or exporter of subject 

merchandise. The Government of the 

PRC did not respond to the 

Department’s April 28, 2005, letter 

requesting assistance in identifying 

producers and exporters of the subject 

merchandise in the PRC. On June 2, 

2005, the Department requested 

clarifying Q&V information from Haili, 

ColArt, Ningbo Conda and Phoenix 

Materials. On June 6, 2005, we received 

responses from Haili, ColArt, Ningbo 

Conda and Phoenix Materials clarifying 

their Q&V information. 

On May 13, 2005, the Department 

requested comments from all interested 

parties on proposed control numbers 

(‘‘CONNUMs’’) to be assigned the 

subject merchandise. On May 23, 2005, 

we received comments from: Michaels 

Stores, Inc., Aaron Brothers, 

Macpherson’s ColArt Americas Inc., 

Crafts, Etc!, Ltd./Hobby Lobby Stores, 

Inc., and Jerry’s Artarama, Inc. 

(collectively, ‘‘Importers’’); Petitioner; 

and Phoenix Materials. 

On May 24, 2005, the United States 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

issued its affirmative preliminary 

determination that there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States is materially injured by 

reason of imports from the PRC of 

certain artist canvas. The ITC’s 

determination was published in the 

Federal Register on May 24, 2005. See 

Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1091 

(Preliminary), Artists’ Canvas from 

China, 70 FR 29781 (May 24, 2005). 

On May 25, 2005, the Department 

determined that India, Indonesia, Sri 

Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are 

countries comparable to the PRC in 

terms of economic development. See 

Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, 

Acting Director, Office of Policy to 

Robert Bolling, Program Manager, 

China/NME Group, Office 8: 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Artist Canvas from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC): Request for a 

List of Surrogate Countries, dated May 

25, 2005 (‘‘Office of Policy Surrogate 

Countries Memorandum’’). 

On May 27, 2005, the Department 

requested that the parties submit 

comments on surrogate country 

selection. On June 24, 2005, we received 

comments regarding the selection of a 

surrogate country from the Petitioner 

and from the Importers. Both the 

Petitioner and Importers argued that 

India is the appropriate surrogate 

country. 

On May 27, 2005, we received 

separate rate applications from 

Hangzhou Foreign Relation & Trade 

Service Co. Ltd. (‘‘HFERTS’’) and 

Jiangsu Animal By–products Import & 

Export Group Corp. (‘‘Jiangsu By–

products’’). On June 16, 2005, we 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 67413 

requested additional information from 

HFERTS regarding its separate rate 

application. 

On June 9, 2005, the Department 

issued its respondent–selection 

memorandum, selecting the following 

two companies as mandatory 

respondents in this investigation: 

Ningbo Conda and Phoenix Materials. 

See Memorandum from Wendy J. 

Frankel, Director, AD/CVD 

Enforcement, Office 8, to Edward Yang, 

Senior Enforcement Coordinator, China/ 

NME Group, Selection of Respondents 

for the Antidumping Duty Investigation 

of Artist Canvas from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘Respondent 

Selection Memo’’), dated June 9, 2005. 

On June 13, 2005, the Department 

issued its Sections A, C, D, and E, 

questionnaire to Ningbo Conda and 

Phoenix Materials. On June 13, 2005, we 

also issued a Sections A, C, D, and E 

questionnaire to the Chinese 

Government (i.e., Ministry of 

Commerce). 

On June 27, 2005, Phoenix Materials 

requested that it be excused from 

submitting the factors of production 

spreadsheet contained in Appendix VI 

to the Department’s original 

questionnaire. On July 14, 2005, we 

informed Ningbo Conda and Phoenix 

Materials that we had revised the factors 

of production spreadsheet, and created 

a spreadsheet for this investigation that 

both respondents are required to 

complete. 

On July 1, 2005, we provided a oneweek extension until July 11, 2005, to 

Ningbo Conda for its response to our 

Section A questionnaire. Additionally, 

on July 5, 2005, we provided a two–

business day extension until July 7, 

2005, to Phoenix Materials for its 

response to our Section A questionnaire. 

Further, on July 13, 2005, we provided 

an extension until July 25, 2005, to all 

mandatory respondents to respond to 

Sections C, D, and E of the 

questionnaire. For a detailed discussion 

on specific mandatory respondent 

extensions, please see the company–

specific section for each mandatory 

respondent below. 

On July 29, 2005, the Department 

determined that India was the 

appropriate surrogate country to use in 

this investigation. See Memorandum to 

Wendy J. Frankel, Director, AD/CVD 

Enforecement, Office 8, from Michael 

Holton, Case Analyst, through Robert 

Bolling, Program Manager: 

Antidumping Duty Investigation on 

Certain Artist Canvas from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘Surrogate–Country 

Memorandum’’), dated July 29, 2005. 

We received comments from interested 

parties regarding our selection of India 

as the surrogate country. For a detailed 

discussion of the comments regarding 

the surrogate country, please see the 

‘‘Surrogate Country’’ section below. 

Additionally, on July 13, 2005, we 

extended the time period for interested 

parties to provide surrogate values for 

the factors of production until August 1, 

2005. On July 29, 2005, we received a 

request from the Importers to further 

extend the deadline for supplying 

surrogate–value information. On August 

1, 2005, we informed all interested 

parties that we were again extending the 

time period to provide surrogate–value 

information until August 5, 2005. 

On August 5, 2005, Petitioner, Ningbo 

Conda, and Phoenix Materials 

submitted surrogate–value information. 

On September 2, 2005, Petitioner 

submitted comments on respondents’

surrogate–value information. 

On August 11, 2005, Petitioner made 

a timely request pursuant to 19 CFR 

§351.205(e) for a twenty–nine day 

postponement of the preliminary 

determination, until October 7, 2005. 

On August 19, 2005, the Department 

published a postponement of the 

preliminary antidumping duty 

determination on artist canvas from the 

PRC. See Notice of Postponement of the 

Preliminary Determination of Certain 

Artist Canvas from the People’s 

Republic of China Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 70 FR 48667 (August 19, 

2005). Additionally, on September 29, 

2005, Petitioner made another timely 

request pursuant to 19 CFR §351.205(e) 

for an additional twenty–one day 

postponement of the preliminary 

determination, until October 28, 2005. 

On October 13, 2005, the Department 

published a postponement of the 

preliminary antidumping duty 

determination on artist canvas from the 

PRC. See Notice of Postponement of the 

Preliminary Determination of Certain 

Artist Canvas from the People’s 

Republic of China Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 70 FR 59718 (October 13, 

2005). 

Company–Specific Chronology 

As described above, the Department 

staggered its issuance of sections of the 

antidumping questionnaire to the 

mandatory respondents. Upon receipt of 

the various responses, the Petitioners 

provided comments and the Department 

issued supplemental questionnaires. 

The chronology of this stage of the 

investigation varies by respondent. 

Therefore, the Department has separated 

by company the following discussion of 

its information–gathering process after 

issuance of the questionnaire. 

Ningbo Conda 

On May 27, 2005, Ningbo Conda 

submitted a separate rate application. 

On July 11, 2005, Ningbo Conda 

submitted its response to Section A of 

the questionnaire. On July 25, 2005, 

Ningbo Conda submitted its response to 

Sections C and D of the questionnaire. 

On August 3, 2005, the Department 

issued a Supplemental Section A 

questionnaire covering Ningbo Conda’s 

July 11, 2005, Section A response. On 

July 28, 2005, Petitioners submitted 

deficiency comments on the Section A 

response of Ningbo Conda. On August 

19, 2005, Ningbo Conda submitted its 

response to the Supplemental Section A 

questionnaire. On August 15, 2005, 

Petitioners submitted deficiency 

comments on the Sections C and D 

responses of Ningbo Conda. On August 

18, 2005, the Department issued a 

Supplemental Sections C and D 

questionnaire covering Ningbo Conda’s 

July 25, 2005, Sections C and D 

response. On September 9, 2005, Ningbo 

Conda submitted its response to the 

Department’s August 18, 2005, 

Supplemental Sections C and D 

questionnaire. On September 14, 2005, 

the Department issued a Supplemental 

Sections A and C questionnaire 

requesting financial information and a 

new U.S. sales database. On September 

21, 2005, Ningbo Conda submitted its 

response to the Department’s September 

14, 2005, Supplemental Sections A and 

C questionnaire. On September 21, 

2005, the Department issued a 

Supplemental Sections A, C, and D 

questionnaire covering Ningbo Conda’s 

responses. On September 28, 2005, 

Ningbo Conda submitted its response to 

the Department’s Supplemental 

Sections A, C, and D questionnaire. On 

October 3, 2005, Petitioners submitted 

comments regarding Ningbo Conda’s 

September 28, 2005, response. On 

October 3, 2005, the Department issued 

a Supplemental Sections A, C, and D 

questionnaire covering Ningbo Conda’s 

responses. On October 7, 2005, the 

Department issued a Supplemental 

Sections C questionnaire covering 

Ningbo Conda’s responses. On October 

4, 2005, Ningbo Conda’s U.S. affiliate 

submitted a response to the 

Department’s September 21, 2005, 

Supplemental Sections A, C, and D 

questionnaire. On October 19, 2005, 

Ningbo Conda submitted a response to 

the Department’s October 3, 2005, 

Supplemental Sections A, C, and D 

questionnaire. On October 19, 2005, 

Ningbo Conda submitted a response to 

the Department’s Supplemental 

Sections C questionnaire. 

67414 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

1Artist canvases with a non-copyrighted 

preprinted outline, pattern, or design are included 

in the scope, whether or not included in a painting 

set or kit. 

Phoenix Materials 

On July 7, 2005, Phoenix Materials 

submitted its response to Section A of 

the questionnaire. On July 25, 2005, 

Phoenix Materials submitted its 

response to Sections C and D of the 

questionnaire. On July 25, 2005, the 

Department issued a Supplemental 

Section A questionnaire covering 

Phoenix Materials’ July 7, 2005, Section 

A response. On July 28, 2005, 

Petitioners submitted deficiency 

comments on the Section A responses of 

Phoenix Materials. On August 10, 2005, 

Phoenix Materials submitted its 

response to the Supplemental Section A 

questionnaire. On August 15, 2005, 

Petitioners submitted deficiency 

comments on the Sections C and D 

responses of Phoenix Materials. On 

August 19, 2005, the Department issued 

a Supplemental Section A–D 

questionnaire covering Phoenix 

Materials’ July 28, 2005, Sections C and 

D response and its August 10, 2005, 

response to the Supplemental Section A 

questionnaire. On September 9, 2005, 

Phoenix Materials submitted its 

response to the Supplemental Sections 

A–D questionnaire issued on August 19, 

2005. On September 20, 2005, the 

Department issued a Second 

Supplemental A–D questionnaire to 

Phoenix Materials. On September 30, 

2005, Phoenix Materials submitted its 

response to the Second Supplemental 

A–D questionnaire. 

Postponement of Final Determination 

Section 735(a) of the Act provides that 

a final determination may be postponed 

until no later than 135 days after the 

date of the publication of the 

preliminary determination if, in the 

event of an affirmative preliminary 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by exporters who 

account for a significant proportion of 

exports of the subject merchandise or, in 

the event of a negative preliminary 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by the 

Petitioners. The Department’s 

regulations at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) 

require that requests by respondents for 

postponement of a final determination 

be accompanied by a request for an 

extension of the provisional measures 

from a four-month period to not more 

than six months. 

On October 5, 2005, Ningbo Conda 

requested that, in the event of an 

affirmative preliminary determination 

in this investigation, the Department 

postpone its final determination by 60 

days until 135 days after the publication 

of the preliminary determination. As 

well, on October 26, 2005, Phoenix 

Materials requested that, in the event of 

an affirmative preliminary 

determination, the Department postpone 

its final determination by 60 days until 

135 days after the publication of the 

preliminary determination. 

Additionally, Ningbo Conda and 

Phoenix Materials requested that the 

Department extend the provisional 

measures under Section 733(d) of the 

Act. Accordingly, because we have 

made an affirmative preliminary 

determination and the requesting parties 

account for a significant proportion of 

the exports of the subject merchandise, 

pursuant to 735(a)(2) of the Act, we 

have postponed the final determination 

until no later than 135 days after the 

date of publication of the preliminary 

determination and are extending the 

provisional measures accordingly. 

Period of Investigation 

The POI is July 1, 2004 through 

December 31, 2004. This period 

corresponds to the two most recent 

fiscal quarters prior to the month of the 

filing of the petition (March 31, 2005). 

See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are artist canvases 

regardless of dimension and/or size, 

whether assembled or unassembled, that 

have been primed/coated, whether or 

not made from cotton, whether or not 

archival, whether bleached or 

unbleached, and whether or not 

containing an ink receptive top coat. 

Priming/coating includes the 

application of a solution, designed to 

promote the adherence of artist 

materials, such as paint or ink, to the 

fabric. Artist canvases (i.e., pre–

stretched canvases, canvas panels, 

canvas pads, canvas rolls (including 

bulk rolls that have been primed), 

printable canvases, floor cloths, and 

placemats) are tightly woven prepared 

painting and/or printing surfaces. Artist 

canvas and stretcher strips (whether or 

not made of wood and whether or not 

assembled) included within a kit or set 

are covered by this proceeding. 

Artist canvases subject to this 

investigation are currently classifiable 

under subheadings 5901.90.20.00 and 

5901.90.40.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Specifically excluded from the scope of 

this investigation are tracing cloths, 

‘‘paint–by-number’’ or ‘‘paint–ityourself’’ artist canvases with a 

copyrighted preprinted outline, pattern, 

or design, whether or not included in a 

painting set or kit.1 Also excluded are 

stretcher strips, whether or not made 

from wood, so long as they are not 

incorporated into artist canvases or sold 

as part of an artist canvas kit or set. 

While HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes, 

our written description of the scope of 

this proceeding is dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the preamble to 

our regulations (see Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 

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

aside a period of time for parties to raise 

issues regarding product coverage and 

encouraged all parties to submit 

comments within 20 calendar days of 

publication of the Notice of Initiation 

(see 70 FR at 21996). 

The Department received numerous 

scope comments from a variety of 

interested parties. On May 18, 2005, the 

Importers provided scope comments 

concerning three product categories that 

they believe should be excluded from 

the scope of the investigation: (1) kits; 

(2) bleached canvas; and (3) splined 

canvas. Additionally, on May 18, 2005, 

Phoenix Materials requested 

confirmation that two products were 

outside the scope of the investigation: 

(1) artist canvas panels that are pre–

printed with copyrighted ‘‘paint–bynumber’’ outlines; and (2) artist canvas 

panels that are pre–printed with 

copyrighted ‘‘paint–by-number’’

outlines that are sold within a boxed 

‘‘painting set.’’

On May 26, 2005, Petitioner 

responded to the above–mentioned 

comments stating that the Department 

should reject the exclusion requests of 

the Importers and Phoenix Materials. 

Additionally, on May 18, 2005, Design 

Ideas, Ltd. (‘‘Design Ideas’’) (a U.S. 

Importer) provided scope comments 

arguing that the artist canvas it imports 

from the PRC produced by Hangzhou 

Haili is outside the scope of the 

investigation because India, not the PRC 

is the country of origin of the product. 

On June 2, 2005, Petitioner provided a 

rebuttal to Design Ideas’ May 18th 

submission wherein Petitioner stated 

that the Department should deny Design 

Ideas’ exclusion request for artist canvas 

produced by Hangzhou Haili. On July 1, 

2005, Design Ideas responded to 

Petitioners’ June 2nd submission, 

stating that it is clear from the record 

that India is the country of origin of its 

imported artist canvas. On July 25, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 67415 

2005, Petitioner responded to Design 

Ideas’ July 1st submission stating that 

this submission provided no support or 

citation for granting Design Ideas’

exclusion request and Petitioner stated 

that the Department should deny 

Hangzhou Haili’s exclusion request. On 

August 10, 2005, Design Ideas 

responded to Petitioners’ July 25th 

submission, stating that it is clear from 

the record that the artist canvases 

produced by Hangzhou Haili in the PRC 

using gesso primed canvas from India 

and imported into the United States are 

not within the scope of the 

investigation. On August 17, 2005, the 

Importers responded to both Design 

Ideas and Petitioner comments stating 

that it supports Design Ideas’ request 

that artist canvases produced by 

Hangzhou Haili from gesso primed 

canvas produced in India should be 

excluded from the scope of the 

investigation. On September 2, 2005, 

Petitioner responded to both the August 

10th and 17th submissions, wherein 

Petitioner stated that it continues to 

believe there is no basis to grant Design 

Ideas’ request. 

Further, as part of this process, the 

Department has fully summarized and 

addresses all of the comments received 

to date in a memorandum to the file. See 

Memorandum to the File from Michael 

Holton, Case Analyst, to Wendy Frankel, 

Office Director, Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Artist Canvas 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Summary on Comments to the Scope, 

dated October 28, 2005 (‘‘Scope 

Memorandum’’). 

For this preliminary determination, 

the Department has made 

determinations with respect to artist 

canvas kits, paint–by-number artist 

canvas, bleached canvas, and splined 

canvas in the Scope Memorandum. 

However, the Department has not yet 

determined whether artist canvas 

primed in India but processed and 

exported from the PRC is within the 

scope of this investigation. Nonetheless, 

the Department intends to issue a 

preliminary finding on whether artist 

canvas primed in India but processed 

and exported from the PRC is within the 

scope of this investigation. We will 

afford interested parties an opportunity 

to provide comments on our 

preliminary finding on this issue in 

their pre–hearing briefs. 

Selection of Respondents 

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs 

the Department to calculate individual 

weighted–average dumping margins for 

each known exporter and producer of 

the subject merchandise. Section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the 

Department discretion, when faced with 

a large number of exporters/producers, 

to limit its examination to a reasonable 

number of such companies if it is not 

practicable to examine all companies. 

Where it is not practicable to examine 

all known producers/exporters of 

subject merchandise, this provision 

permits the Department to investigate 

either (1) a sample of exporters, 

producers, or types of products that is 

statistically valid based on the 

information available to the Department 

at the time of selection or (2) exporters/ 

producers accounting for the largest 

volume of the merchandise under 

investigation that can reasonably be 

examined. After consideration of the 

complexities expected to arise in this 

proceeding and the resources available 

to it, the Department determined that it 

was not practicable in this investigation 

to examine all known producers/ 

exporters of subject merchandise. 

Instead, we limited our examination to 

the two exporters and producers 

accounting for the largest volume of the 

subject merchandise pursuant to section 

777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Ningbo Conda 

and Phoenix Materials, the exporters 

accounting for the largest volume of 

exports to the United States, account for 

a significant percentage of all exports of 

the subject merchandise from the PRC 

during the POI and were selected as 

mandatory respondents. See 

Respondent Selection Memo at 4. 

Non–Market-Economy Country 

For purposes of initiation, the 

Petitioners submitted LTFV analyses for 

the PRC as a non–market economy. See 

Notice of Initiation 70 FR at 21997. In 

every case conducted by the Department 

involving the PRC, the PRC has been 

treated as an Non–Market Economy 

(‘‘NME’’) country. In accordance with 

section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any 

determination that a foreign country is 

an NME country shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the administering 

authority. See also Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 

and Unfinished, (‘‘TRBs’’) From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results 2001–2002 Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of 

Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003), 

unchanged in Final Results of 2001–

2002 Administrative Review: TRBs from 

the People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 

70488 (December 18, 2003). Therefore, 

we have treated the PRC as an NME 

country for purposes of this preliminary 

determination. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME, section 773(c)(1) 

of the Act directs it to base normal 

value, in most circumstances, on the 

NME producer’s factors of production 

valued in a surrogate market–economy 

country or countries considered to be 

appropriate by the Department. In 

accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the 

Act, in valuing the factors of 

production, the Department shall 

utilize, to the extent possible, the prices 

or costs of factors of production in one 

or more market–economy countries that 

are at a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the NME country 

and are significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. The sources 

of the surrogate values we have used in 

this investigation are discussed under 

the normal value section below. 

The Department determined that 

India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the 

Philippines, and Egypt are countries 

comparable to the PRC in terms of 

economic development. See Office of 

Policy Surrogate Countries 

Memorandum. Once the countries that 

are economically comparable to the PRC 

have been identified, we select an 

appropriate surrogate country by 

determining whether an economically 

comparable country is a significant 

producer of subject merchandise and 

whether the data for valuing factors of 

production is both available and 

reliable. 

On June 24, 2005, the Department 

received arguments from interested 

parties on the surrogate country. 

Petitioner argues that India is the 

appropriate surrogate country for this 

investigation because India is at a 

comparable level of economic 

development with the PRC based on the 

Department’s repeated use of India as a 

surrogate. Petitioner argues that India is 

a significant producer of identical and 

comparable merchandise. Additionally, 

Petitioner contends that India provides 

publicly available information on which 

to base surrogate values. 

Also, on June 24, 2005, the Importers 

argue that India is the only country that 

appears to meet the Department’s 

criteria for a surrogate country based on 

economic comparability, significant 

production of comparable merchandise, 

and the availability of factor data. See 

the Selection of a Surrogate Country 

Memorandum dated August 3, 2004, for 

a complete description of the interested 

parties surrogate country arguments. 

Consequently, we have made the 

following determination about the use 

of India as a surrogate country: (1) it is 

a significant producer of comparable 

merchandise; (2) it is at a similar level 

of economic development pursuant to 

733(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) we have 

reliable data from India that we can use 

67416 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

to value the factors of production. See 

Selection of a Surrogate Country 

Memorandum. Thus, we have 

calculated normal value using Indian 

prices when available and appropriate 

to value the factors of production of the 

artist canvas producers. We have 

obtained and relied upon publicly 

available information wherever 

possible. See Memorandum to the File 

from Jon Freed, Case Analyst, through 

Robert Bolling, Program Manager, and 

Wendy Frankel, Office Director: Certain 

Artist Canvas from the People’s 

Republic of China: Factors Valuation 

Memorandum for the Preliminary 

Determination, dated October 7, 2005 

(‘‘Factor–Valuation Memorandum’’). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final 

determination in an antidumping 

investigation, interested parties may 

submit publicly available information to 

value the factors of production within 

40 days after the date of publication of 

the preliminary determination. 

Affiliation 

Section 771(33) of the Act states that 

the Department considers the following 

entities to be affiliated: (A) Members of 

a family, including brothers and sisters 

(whether by whole or half blood), 

spouse, ancestors, and lineal 

descendants; (B) Any officer or director 

of an organization and such 

organization; (C) Partners; (D) Employer 

and employee; (E) Any person directly 

or indirectly owning, controlling, or 

holding with power to vote, 5 percent or 

more of the outstanding voting stock or 

shares of any organization and such 

organization; (F) Two or more persons 

directly or indirectly controlling, 

controlled by, or under common control 

with, any person; and (G) Any person 

who controls any other person and such 

other person. 

For purposes of affiliation, section 

771(33) of the Act states that a person 

shall be considered to control another 

person if the person is legally or 

operationally in a position to exercise 

restraint or direction over the other 

person. In order to find affiliation 

between companies, the Department 

must find that at least one of the criteria 

listed above is applicable to the 

respondents. 

The Statement of Administrative 

Action accompanying the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act (‘‘SAA’’), H.R. 

Doc. 103–316 (1994), indicates that 

stock ownership is not the only 

evidentiary factor that the Department 

may consider to determine whether a 

person is in a position to exercise 

restraint or direction over another 

person, e.g., control may be established 

through corporate or family groupings, 

or joint ventures and other means as 

well. See SAA at 838. See also Certain 

Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 42833, 

42853 (August 19, 1996); and Certain 

Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes 

from Thailand: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 62 FR 53808, 53810 (October 

16, 1997). 

To the extent that the affiliation 

provisions in section 771(33) of the Act 

do not conflict with the Department’s 

application of separate rates and the 

statutory NME provisions in section 

773(c) of the Act, the Department will 

determine that exporters and/or 

producers are affiliated if the facts of the 

case support such a finding. See Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of Sixth New Shipper Review and 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Fourth Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 69 FR 10410, 

10413 (March 5, 2004) (‘‘Mushrooms’’), 

unchanged in Final Results and Final 

Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 54361 

(September 14, 2005). 

Ningbo Conda 

Following these guidelines, we 

preliminarily determine that members 

of the Ningbo Conda Group (i.e., Ningbo 

Conda and Conda (Ningbo) Painting 

Material Mfg. (‘‘Conda Painting’’)) are 

affiliated pursuant to Section 771(33) of 

the Act. We also preliminarily 

determine that the Ningbo Conda Group 

should be treated as a single entity for 

the purposes of the antidumping 

investigation of certain artist canvas 

from the PRC. 

Further, based on our examination of 

the evidence presented in Ningbo 

Conda’s questionnaire responses, we 

preliminarily find that Jinhua Universal 

Canvas Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jinhua 

Universal’’) is affiliated with the Ningbo 

Conda Group pursuant to sections 

771(33)(B), (E), (F) and (G) of the Act 

and should be treated as a single entity 

with the Ningbo Conda Group for 

purposes of calculating a dumping 

margin in this investigation. See 

Mushrooms, 69 FR 10410, 10413 (March 

5, 2004), see also, Hontex Enterprises, 

Inc. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 

1323, 1339–1345 (CIT 2003). We made 

this determination based on record 

evidence from Ningbo Conda’s 

questionnaire responses that stated that 

Ningbo Conda, Conda Painting, and 

Jinhua Universal share the same director 

and the same director directly or 

indirectly owns and controls more than 

five percent of outstanding stock of each 

of these companies. 

Further, evidence presented in 

Ningbo Conda’s questionnaire responses 

indicates that during the POI the Ningbo 

Conda Group sold subject merchandise 

to a U.S. reseller. The Department 

preliminary determines that under 

sections (711)(33)(E), (F), and (G) of the 

Act, this reseller is affiliated with 

several other entities all owned and 

controlled by the parent corporation. 

These entities are referred to as Group 

A in the affiliation memorandum. For 

the purposes of this analysis, we have 

treated Group A as a single entity. 

Additionally, we have determined 

that Group A and Jinhua Universal are 

affiliated parties, consistent with record 

evidence, the Department’s practice and 

sections 771(33)(E) and (F) of the Act. 

We made this determination based on 

record evidence from Ningbo Conda’s 

questionnaire responses that stated that 

Group A’s parent corporation directly or 

indirectly owns and controls more than 

five percent of outstanding stock of 

Jinhua Universal. 

Furthermore, we have determined 

that the Ningbo Conda Group and Group 

A are affiliated under sections 

771(33)(F) of the Act. We made this 

determination based on record evidence 

from Ningbo Conda’s questionnaire 

responses that stated that Ningbo 

Conda’s and Group A’s ownership of 

Jinhua Universal result in Ningbo 

Conda’s and Group A’s direct or indirect 

control of Jinhua Universal. 

Accordingly, we are using Group A’s 

U.S. downstream sales to the first U.S. 

unaffiliated customer in our margin 

calculation. See Memorandum to Wendy 

Frankel, Director, Office 8, NME/China 

Group, through Robert Bolling, Program 

Manager, From Michael Holton, Case 

Analyst, Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Artist Canvas 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Affiliation of Ningbo Conda, dated 

October 28, 2005 (‘‘Affiliation 

Memorandum’’). 

Phoenix Materials 

Following these guidelines, we 

preliminarily determine that Phoenix 

Materials, Wuxi Phoenix Stationary Co. 

Ltd (‘‘Phoenix Stationary’’), and 

Shuyang Phoenix Artist Materials Co. 

Ltd. (‘‘Shuyang Phoenix’’), collectively, 

(‘‘Phoenix Group’’) are affiliated 

pursuant to sections 771(33)(E) and (G) 

of the Act and that these companies 

should be treated as a single entity for 

the purposes of the antidumping 

investigation of artist canvas from the 

PRC. Based on our examination of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 67417 

evidence presented in Phoenix 

Materials’ questionnaire responses, we 

have determined that: (1) Phoenix 

Materials controls a majority of Phoenix 

Stationary based on stock–ownership, 

and Phoenix Materials controls Shuyang 

Phoenix; (2) Phoenix Materials, Phoenix 

Stationary, and Shuyang Phoenix have 

overlapping managers and directors; 

and (3) Phoenix Materials and Phoenix 

Stationary share production facilities 

and production records. See 

Memorandum to Wendy Frankel, 

Director, Office 8, NME/China Group, 

through Robert Bolling, Program 

Manager, From Jon Freed, Case Analyst, 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Artist Canvas from the People’s 

Republic of China: Phoenix Affiliation 

and Treatment as a Single Entity of 

Phoenix Materials and its Members, 

dated October 28, 2005 (‘‘Affiliation/ 

Single Entity Treatment 

Memorandum’’). 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate. The two mandatory 

respondents and the two Separate Rate 

Applicants have provided company–

specific information and each has stated 

that it meets the standards for the 

assignment of a separate rate. 

We have considered whether each of 

the four companies referenced above is 

eligible for a separate rate. The 

Department’s separate–rate test to 

determine whether the exporters are 

independent from government control 

does not consider, in general, 

macroeconomic/border–type controls, 

e.g., export licenses, quotas, and 

minimum export prices, particularly if 

these controls are imposed to prevent 

dumping. The test focuses, rather, on 

controls over the investment, pricing, 

and output decision–making process at 

the individual firm level. See Certain 

Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 

Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 

61758 (November 19, 1997); and 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 

61279 (November 17, 1997). 

To establish whether a firm is 

sufficiently independent from 

government control of its export 

activities to be entitled to a separate 

rate, the Department analyzes each 

entity exporting the subject 

merchandise under a test arising from 

the Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 

(May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as 

amplified by Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon 

Carbide from the People’s Republic of 

China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2,1994) 

(‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). In accordance with 

the separate–rates criteria, the 

Department assigns separate rates in 

NME cases only if respondents can 

demonstrate the absence of both de jure 

and de facto governmental control over 

export activities. 

1. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) an absence of 

restrictive stipulations associated with 

an individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

Our analysis shows that the evidence 

on the record supports a preliminary 

finding of the absence of de jure 

governmental control for Ningbo Conda 

Group (Ningbo Conda and its affiliated 

exporters, Conda Painting and Jinhua 

Universal), Phoenix Materials (and its 

affiliated exporter Phoenix Stationary), 

HFERTS, and Jiangsu By–products 

based on the criteria listed above. See 

Memorandum to Wendy Frankel, Office 

Director, China/NME Group, through 

Robert Bolling, Program Manager, from 

Jon Freed and Michael Holton, Case 

Analysts, Certain Artist Canvas from the 

People’s Republic of China: Separate 

Rates Memorandum (‘‘Separate–Rates 

Memorandum’’), dated October 7, 2005. 

2. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

the following four factors in evaluating 

whether each respondent is subject to 

de facto governmental control of its 

export functions: (1) whether the export 

prices are set by or are subject to the 

approval of a governmental agency; (2) 

whether the respondent has authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; see also Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Furfuryl Alcohol From the People’s 

Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 

(May 8, 1995). The Department has 

determined that an analysis of de facto 

control is critical in determining 

whether respondents are, in fact, subject 

to a degree of governmental control 

which would preclude the Department 

from assigning separate rates. 

We preliminarily determine that, for 

Ningbo Conda (and its affiliated 

exporters, Conda Painting and Jinhua 

Univeral), Phoenix Materials (and its 

affiliated exporter Phoenix Stationary), 

HFERTS, and Jiangsu By–products, the 

evidence on the record supports a 

preliminary finding of de facto absence 

of governmental control based on record 

statements and supporting 

documentation showing the following: 

(1) each exporter sets its own export 

prices independent of the government 

and without the approval of a 

government authority; (2) each exporter 

retains the proceeds from its sales and 

makes independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; (3) each exporter has the 

authority to negotiate and sign contracts 

and other agreements; and (4) each 

exporter has autonomy from the 

government regarding the selection of 

management. 

Therefore, the evidence placed on the 

record of this investigation by Ningbo 

Conda (and its affiliated exporters, 

Conda Painting and Jinhua Univeral), 

Phoenix Materials (and its affiliated 

exporter Phoenix Stationary), HFERTS, 

and Jiangsu By–products demonstrates 

an absence of government control, both 

in law and in fact, with respect to each 

of the exporter’s exports of the 

merchandise under investigation in 

accordance with the criteria identified 

in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. 

However, although HFERTS has 

demonstrated an absence of government 

control, both in law and in fact, with 

respect to its exports of artist canvas, the 

Department has not determined the 

country of origin of the merchandise 

exported by HFERTS. Until the 

Department determines that HFERTS 

had exports of subject merchandise, 

HFERTS is not entitled to a separate 

rate. As a result, for the purposes of this 

preliminary determination, we have 

granted separate, company–specific 

rates to the mandatory respondents and 

their affiliates and to one of the separate 

rate applicants (Jiangsu By–products) 

67418 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

which shipped subject artist canvas to 

the United States during the POI. For a 

full discussion of this issue, please see 

the Separate–Rates Memorandum. If the 

Department determines that the 

merchandise exported by HFERTS is 

artist canvas from the PRC, the 

Department intends to assign HFERTS a 

separate rate. 

PRC–Wide Rate 

The Department has data that indicate 

there were more exporters of artist 

canvas from the PRC during the POI 

than those which responded to the Q&V 

questionnaire. See Respondent Selection 

Memorandum at 1. Although we issued 

the Q&V questionnaire to six known 

Chinese exporters of the subject 

merchandise, from these six we received 

four Q&V questionnaire responses, and 

one unsolicited Q&V questionnaire. 

Also, on June 13, 2005, we issued our 

complete questionnaire to the Chinese 

Government (i.e., Ministry of 

Commerce). Although all exporters were 

given an opportunity to provide 

information showing they qualify for 

separate rates, not all of these other 

exporters provided a response to either 

the Department’s Q&V questionnaire or 

its separate rate application. Therefore, 

the Department determines 

preliminarily that there were exports of 

the merchandise under investigation 

from PRC producers/exporters that did 

not respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire. We treated these PRC 

producers/exporters as part of the 

countrywide entity. Further, the 

Government of the PRC did not respond 

to the Department’s questionnaire. 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that, if an interested party (A) withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the Department, (B) fails to provide such 

information in a timely manner or in the 

form or manner requested, subject to 

subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, 

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding 

under the antidumping statute, or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified, the 

Department shall, subject to subsection 

782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. 

Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, 

the Department shall not decline to 

consider submitted information if all of 

the following requirements are met: (1) 

the information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; and (5) 

the information can be used without 

undue difficulties. 

Information on the record of this 

investigation indicates that there are 

numerous producers/exporters of artist 

canvas in the PRC. As described above, 

all exporters were given the opportunity 

to respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire. Based upon our 

knowledge of the volume of imports of 

subject merchandise from the PRC and 

the fact that information indicates that 

the responding companies did not 

account for all imports into the United 

States from the PRC, we preliminarily 

determine that certain PRC exporters of 

artist canvas failed to respond to our 

questionnaires. Additionally, in this 

case, the Government of the PRC did not 

respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire. As a result, use of facts 

available pursuant to section 

776(a)(2)(A) of the Act is appropriate. 

See Preliminary Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of 

Final Determination: Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 (January 31, 

2003), unchanged in Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish 

Fillets from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003). 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party fails to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with requests for 

information, the Department may 

employ adverse inferences. See Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cold–Rolled Flat–

Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel Products 

from the Russian Federation, 65 FR 

5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). See also 

SAA at 870. We find that, because the 

PRC–wide entity did not respond to our 

request for information, it has failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability. 

Therefore, the Department preliminarily 

finds that, in selecting from among the 

facts available, an adverse inference is 

appropriate. 

In selecting from among the facts 

available, Section 776(b) of the Act 

authorizes the Department to use 

adverse–facts-available (‘‘AFA’’) 

information derived from the petition, 

the final determination from the LTFV 

investigation, a previous administrative 

review, or any other information placed 

on the record. As AFA, we have 

assigned to the PRC–wide entity a 

margin based on information in the 

petition, because the margins derived 

from the petition are higher than the 

calculated margins for the selected 

respondents. In this case, we have 

applied a rate of 264.09 percent. 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation as facts available, it must, 

to the extent practicable, corroborate 

that information from independent 

sources reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is described in 

the SAA as ‘‘information derived from 

the petition that gave rise to the 

investigation or review, the final 

determination concerning subject 

merchandise, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

subject merchandise.’’ See SAA at 870. 

The SAA provides that to ‘‘corroborate’’

means simply that the Department will 

satisfy itself that the secondary 

information to be used has probative 

value. See id. The SAA also states that 

independent sources used to corroborate 

may include, for example, published 

price lists, official import statistics and 

customs data, and information obtained 

from interested parties during the 

particular investigation. See id. As 

explained in Tapered Roller Bearings 

and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered 

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in 

Outside Diameter, and Components 

Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial 

Termination of Administrative Reviews, 

61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), 

unchanged in Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Termination in Part: 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From 

Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, 

Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, 

From Japan, 62 FR11825 (March 13, 

2005), to corroborate secondary 

information, the Department will, to the 

extent practicable, examine the 

reliability and relevance of the 

information used. 

The Petitioners’ methodology for 

calculating the export price and normal 

value in the petition is discussed in the 

initiation notice. See Notice of 

Initiation, 70 FR at 21996–21997. To 

corroborate the AFA margin we have 

selected, we compared that margin to 

the margins we found for the 

respondents. 

As discussed in the Memorandum to 

the File regarding the corroboration of 

the AFA rate, dated October 28, 2005, 

we found that the margin of 264.09 

percent has probative value. See 

Memorandum to The File Through 

Robert Bolling, Program Manager, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 67419 

China/NME Group, Corroboration for 

the Preliminary Determination of 

Certain Artist Canvas from the People’s 

Republic of China, dated October 28, 

2005, (‘‘Corroboration Memo’’). 

Accordingly, we find that the rate of 

264.09 percent is corroborated within 

the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. 

Consequently, we are applying a 

single antidumping rate the PRC–wide 

rate to producers/exporters that failed to 

respond to the Q&V questionnaire or the 

separate rate application. This rate will 

also apply to exporters which did not 

demonstrate entitlement to a separate 

rate. See, e.g., Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Synthetic 

Indigo from the People’s Republic of 

China, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 

2000). The PRC–wide rate applies to all 

entries of the merchandise under 

investigation except for entries from the 

two mandatory respondents and one of 

the separate rate applicants. In addition, 

for the preliminary determination, the 

PRC–wide rate does not apply to artist 

canvas that is produced from bulk roll 

canvas coated in a third country and 

exported from the PRC. 

The Department will consider all 

margins on the record at the time of the 

final determination for the purpose of 

determining the most appropriate AFA 

rate for the PRC–wide entity. See 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin from 

the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 

79049, 79054 (December 27, 2002), 

unchanged in Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Saccharin From the People’s Republic of 

China, 68 FR 27530 (May 20, 2003). 

Margin for the Separate Rate 

Applicants 

HFERTS and Jiangsu By–products, 

both exporters of artist canvas from the 

PRC, were not selected as mandatory 

respondents in this investigation but 

have applied for a separate rate and 

provided information to the Department 

for this purpose. However, as stated 

above, the Department has not yet 

determined whether HFERTS had 

exports of subject merchandise and, 

therefore, we are not assigning HFERTS 

a separate rate. We have established a 

weighted–average margin for Jiangsu 

By–products based on the rates we 

calculated for the two mandatory 

respondents, excluding any rates that 

are zero, de minimis, or based entirely 

on adverse facts available. That rate is 

70.28 percent. Jiangsu By–products is 

identified by name in the ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’ section of this notice. 

Date of Sale 

Section 351.401(i) of the Department’s 

regulations state that, ‘‘in identifying the 

date of sale of the subject merchandise 

or foreign like product, the Secretary 

normally will use the date of invoice, as 

recorded in the exporter or producer’s 

records kept in the normal course of 

business.’’ However, the Secretary may 

use a date other than the date of invoice 

if the Secretary is satisfied that a 

different date better reflects the date on 

which the exporter or producer 

establishes the material terms of sale.’’

19 CFR 351.401(i); See also Allied Tube 

and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 

F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090–1093 (CIT 

2001). 

After examining the questionnaire 

responses and the sales documentation 

that Ningbo Conda and the Phoenix 

Group placed on the record, we 

preliminarily determine that invoice 

date is the most appropriate date of sale 

for Ningbo Conda and the Phoenix 

Group. We made this determination 

based on record evidence which 

demonstrates that Ningbo Conda and 

the Phoenix Group invoices establish 

the material terms of sale to the extent 

required by our regulations. Thus, the 

record evidence does not rebut the 

presumption that invoice date is the 

proper date of sale. See Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Saccharin From the People’s 

Republic of China, 67 FR 79054 

(December 27, 2002). 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of artist 

canvas to the United States by the two 

mandatory respondents were made at 

less than fair value, we compared export 

price (‘‘EP’’) or constructed export price 

(‘‘CEP’’) to normal value (‘‘NV’’), as 

described in the ‘‘U.S. Price,’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. 

U.S. Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we used EP for both Ningbo 

Conda and the Phoenix Group, as 

appropriate, because the subject 

merchandise was first sold (or agreed to 

be sold) before the date of importation 

by the producer or exporter of the 

subject merchandise outside the United 

States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the 

United States or to an unaffiliated 

purchaser for exportation to the United 

States and because the use of CEP was 

not otherwise indicated. In accordance 

with section 772(b) of the Act, we used 

CEP for certain of Ningbo Conda’s sales 

because the subject merchandise was 

sold in the United States after the date 

of importation by a U.S. reseller 

affiliated with the Ningbo Conda Group 

and Jinhua Universal. 

We calculated EP and CEP based on 

the packed F.O.B., C.I.F., or delivered 

price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for 

exportation to, the United States. We 

made deductions, as appropriate, for 

any movement expenses (e.g., foreign 

inland freight from the plant to the port 

of exportation, domestic brokerage, 

ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. 

brokerage, and inland freight from 

warehouse to unaffiliated U.S. 

customer) in accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. For a detailed 

description of all adjustments, see 

Memorandum to The File Through 

Robert Bolling, Program Manager, 

China/NME Group, from Michael 

Holton, Case Analyst, Analysis for the 

Preliminary Determination of Certain 

Artist Canvas from the People’s 

Republic of China: ColArt, Ningbo 

Conda Import & Export Co., Ltd., dated 

October 28, 2005, and Memorandum to 

the File Through Robert Bolling, 

Program Manager, China/NME Group, 

From Jon Freed, Case Analyst, Analysis 

for the Preliminary Determination of 

Certain Artist Canvas from the People’s 

Republic of China: Wuxi Phoenix Artist 

Materials Co., Ltd., dated October 28, 

2005. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we 

calculated the CEP by deducting selling 

expenses associated with economic 

activities occurring in the United States 

for Ningbo Conda. 

We compared NV to weighted–

average EPs and CEPs in accordance 

with section 777A(d)(1) of the Act. 

Where appropriate, for Ningbo Conda, 

in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) 

and 772(f) of the Act, we deducted CEP 

profit. For a detailed description of all 

adjustments, see the Company–Specific 

Analysis Memoranda dated October 28, 

2005. 

Normal Value 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department shall determine the 

NV using a factors–of-production 

methodology if the merchandise is 

exported from an NME and the 

information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home–market 

prices, third–country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department bases NV on 

the factors of production because the 

presence of government controls on 

various aspects of these economies 

renders price comparisons and the 

calculation of production costs invalid 

under its normal methodologies. 

The Department’s questionnaire 

requires that the respondent provide 

67420 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

information regarding the weighted–

average factors of production across all 

of the company’s plants that produce 

the subject merchandise, not just the 

factors of production from a single 

plant. This methodology ensures that 

the Department’s calculations are as 

accurate as possible. See e.g., Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: 

Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings 

From the People’s Republic of China, 68 

FR 61395 (Oct. 28, 2003); Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, Comment 19 

(Oct. 20, 2003). Therefore, for the 

Phoenix Group, the Department 

calculated the factors of production 

using the weighted–average factor 

values for all of the facilities involved 

in producing the subject merchandise. 

For Ningbo Conda, the Department 

calculated normal values for each 

CONNUM based on the factors of 

production reported from each of 

Ningbo Conda’s suppliers and then 

averaged the supplier–specific normal 

values together weighted by production 

quantity to derive a single, weighted–

average normal value for each 

CONNUM exported by Ningbo Conda. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on 

factors of production reported by 

respondents for the POI. To calculate 

NV, we multiplied the reported per–unit 

factor–consumption rates by publicly 

available Indian surrogate values. In 

selecting the surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Indian import surrogate values a 

surrogate freight cost using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory or the 

distance from the nearest seaport to the 

factory where appropriate. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v. 

United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407–

1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

For this preliminary determination, in 

accordance with past practice, we used 

data from the Indian Import Statistics or 

Chemical Weekly in order to calculate 

surrogate values for the mandatory 

respondents’ material inputs. In 

selecting the best available information 

for valuing factors of production in 

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

Act, the Department’s practice is to 

select, to the extent practicable, 

surrogate values which are non–export 

average values, most contemporaneous 

with the POI, product–specific, and tax–

exclusive. See e.g., Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Negative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of 

Final Determination: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged 

in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

71005 (December 8, 2004). The record 

shows that data in the Indian Import 

Statistics and Chemical Weekly 

represents import data that is, 

contemporaneous with the POI, 

product–specific, and tax–exclusive. 

Where we could not obtain publicly 

available information contemporaneous 

to the POI with which to value factors, 

we adjusted the surrogate values using, 

where appropriate, the Indian 

Wholesale Price Index as published in 

the International Financial Statistics of 

the International Monetary Fund. 

Furthermore, with regard to the 

Indian import–based surrogate values, 

we have disregarded import prices that 

we have reason to believe or suspect 

may be subsidized. We have reason to 

believe or suspect that prices of inputs 

from Indonesia, South Korea, and 

Thailand may have been subsidized. We 

have found in other proceedings that 

these countries maintain broadly 

available, non–industry-specific export 

subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable 

to infer that all exports to all markets 

from these countries are subsidized. See 

Amended Final Determination of Sales 

at Less than Fair Value: Automotive 

Replacement Glass Windshields from 

the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 

11670 (March 15, 2002), see also Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) 

(‘‘CTVs from the PRC’’). We are also 

directed by the legislative history not to 

conduct a formal investigation to ensure 

that such prices are not subsidized. See 

H.R. Rep. 100–576 at 590 (1988). Rather, 

Congress directed the Department to 

base its decision on information that is 

available to it at the time it makes its 

determination. Therefore, we have not 

used prices from these countries in 

calculating the Indian import–based 

surrogate values. In instances where a 

market–economy input was obtained 

solely from suppliers located in these 

countries, we used Indian import–based 

surrogate values to value the input. See 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive 

Replacement Glass Windshields From 

The People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 

6482 (February 12, 2002), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. 

The Department used the Indian 

Import Statistics to value the following 

raw material inputs, energy, and 

packing materials that Ningbo Conda 

and the Phoenix Group used to produce 

the subject merchandise during the POI: 

Linen Canvas, Cotton Canvas 

(bleached), Cotton Canvas (unbleached), 

Paulownia, Pine, Beech, Foam board, 

Three–ply board, Carton Roll, 

Fiberboard, Paint, Glue, Staple, Nail, 

Plastic, Paper, Sand Paper, Acrylic 

Polymer Resin, Amine PH Adjuster, 

Cellulose, Cinnamene (monomer of 

polystyrene), Lithopone, Octyl Phenol 

emulsifynig agent, Paraffin, Polyvinyl 

Alcohol, Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), 

Talcum Powder, Thickening Agent, 

Tributyl phosphate (TBP), VAE Latex 

(Vinyl acetate ethylene), Zinc Sulfide, 

Paper Label, Plastic sheet (shrink wrap), 

Wooden Peg, Plastic Peg, Labor, 

Electricity, Coal, Water, Box, Cardboard, 

Plastic Strap, Rubber band, and Tape. 

For a detailed description of all 

surrogate values used for respondents, 

see Factor–Valuation Memorandum. 

The Department used Chemical 

Weekly to value the following material 

inputs used by Ningbo Conda and the 

Phoenix Group: Calcium Carbonate, 

Crylic acid, Dispersant, Isobutyl 

Methacrylate, Methacryl acid methyl, 

Polyethylene Resin, Propylene Glycol, 

Sodium Benzoate, Sodium Hydroxide/ 

Caustic Soda, Stearic Acid, and 

Titanium Dioxide/Titanium Pigment, 

see Factor–Valuation Memorandum. 

For direct, indirect, and packing 

labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC 

regression–based wage rate as reported 

on Import Administration’s home page, 

Import Library, Expected Wages of 

Selected NME Countries, revised in 

August 2005, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

wages/index.html. The source of these 

wage–rate data on the Import 

Administration’s web site is the 

Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO 

(Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in 

Manufacturing. Because this regression–

based wage rate does not separate the 

labor rates into different skill levels or 

types of labor, we have applied the same 

wage rate to all skill levels and types of 

labor reported by the respondent. See 

Factor–Valuation Memorandum 

To value electricity, we used data 

from the International Energy Agency 

Key World Energy Statistics (2003 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 67421 

edition). Because the value was not 

contemporaneous with the POI, we 

adjusted the rate for inflation. See 

Factor–Valuation Memorandum. 

The Department valued water using 

data from the Maharastra Industrial 

Development Corporation 

(www.midcindia.org) since it includes a 

wide range of industrial water tariffs. 

This source provides 386 industrial 

water rates within the Maharashtra 

province from June 2003: 193 for the 

‘‘inside industrial areas’’ usage category 

and 193 for the ‘‘outside industrial 

areas’’ usage category. Because the value 

was not contemporaneous with the POI, 

we adjusted the rate for inflation. See 

Factor–Valuation Memorandum. 

The Department valued steam coal 

using the 2003/2004 Tata Energy 

Research Institute’s Energy Data 

Directory & Yearbook (‘‘TERI Data’’). 

The Department was able to determine, 

through its examination of the 2003/ 

2004 TERI Data, that a) the annual TERI 

Data publication is complete and 

comprehensive because it covers all 

sales of all types of coal made by Coal 

India Limited and its subsidiaries, and 

b) the annual TERI Data publication 

prices are exclusive of duties and taxes. 

Because the value was not 

contemporaneous with the POI, we 

adjusted the rate for inflation. See 

Factor–Valuation Memorandum. 

We used Indian transport information 

in order to value the freight–in cost of 

the raw materials. The Department 

determined the best available 

information for valuing truck freight to 

be from www.infreight.com. This source 

provides daily rates from six major 

points of origin to five destinations in 

India during the POI. The Department 

obtained a price quote on the first day 

of each month of the POI from each 

point of origin to each destination and 

averaged the data accordingly. See 

Factor–Valuation Memorandum 

The Department used two sources to 

calculate a surrogate value for domestic 

brokerage expenses. The Department 

averaged December 2003–November 

2004 data contained in Essar Steel’s 

February 28, 2005, public version 

response submitted in the AD 

administrative review of Hot–Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products from India 

with October 2002–September 2003 data 

contained in Pidilite Industries’ March 

9, 2004, public version response 

submitted in the AD investigation of 

Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India. 

The brokerage expense data reported by 

Essar Steel and Pidilite Industries in 

their public versions is ranged data. The 

Department first derived an average 

per–unit amount from each source. 

Then the Department adjusted each 

average rate for inflation, Finally, the 

Department averaged the two per–unit 

amounts to derive an overall average 

rate for the POI. See Factor–Valuation 

Memorandum. 

To value marine insurance, the 

Department obtained a price quote from 

http://www.rjgconsultants.com/ 

insurance.html, a market–economy 

provider of marine insurance. See 

Factor–Valuation Memorandum. 

To value international freight, the 

Department obtained price quotes from 

http://www.maersksealand.com/ 

HomePage/appmanager/, a market–

economy provider of international 

freight services. See Factor–Valuation 

Memorandum. 

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative expenses, 

and profit, we used the audited 

financial statements for the fiscal year 

ending March 31, 2005, from Camlin 

Ltd., an Indian producer of artist canvas 

from India. See Factor–Valuation 

Memorandum for a full discussion of 

the calculation of the ratios from this 

financial statement. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act, based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the 

Act, we intend to verify the information 

upon which we will rely in making our 

final determination. 

Combination Rates 

In the Notice of Initiation, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

Notice of Initiation, 70 FR 21996, 21999. 

This change in practice is described in 

Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate–Rates 

Practice and Application of 

Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations involving Non–Market 

Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005), 

(‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’) available at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The Policy 

Bulletin 05.1, states: 

‘‘[w]hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to 

exporters, all separate rates that the 

Department will now assign in its 

NME investigations will be specific 

to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of 

investigation. Note, however, that 

one rate is calculated for the 

exporter and all of the producers 

which supplied subject 

merchandise to it during the period 

of investigation. This practice 

applies both to mandatory 

respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate 

rate as well as the pool of non–

investigated firms receiving the 

weighted–average of the 

individually calculated rates. This 

practice is referred to as the 

application of ‘‘combination rates’’

because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one 

or more producers. The cash–

deposit rate assigned to an exporter 

will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in 

question and produced by a firm 

that supplied the exporter during 

the period of investigation.’’

Policy Bulletin 05.1, at page 6. 

Preliminary Determination 

The weighted–average dumping 

margins are as follows: 

ARTIST CANVAS FROM THE PRC - WEIGHTED–AVERAGE DUMPING MARGINS

Exporter Producer Weighted–Average Deposit Rate 

NingboConda ............................................................. Jinhua Universal 55.78 

Ningbo Conda ............................................................ Wuxi Silver Eagle Cultural Goods Co. Ltd. 55.78 

Conda Painting .......................................................... Wuxi Pegasus Cultural Goods Co. Ltd. 55.78 

Jinhua Universal ........................................................ Jinhua Universal 55.78 

Phoenix Materials ...................................................... Phoenix Materials 73.66 

Phoenix Materials ...................................................... Phoenix Stationary 73.66 

Phoenix Materials ...................................................... Shuyang Phoenix 73.66 

Pheonix Stationary ..................................................... Phoenix Materials 73.66 

Pheonix Stationary ..................................................... Phoenix Stationary 73.66 

Pheonix Stationary ..................................................... Shuyang Phoenix 73.66 

67422 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

1The petitioners are ISG Georgetown (formerly 

Georgetown Steel Company), Gerdau Ameristeel 

U.S., Inc., (formely Co-Steel Raritan), Keystone 

Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel 

Texas, Inc. 

ARTIST CANVAS FROM THE PRC - WEIGHTED–AVERAGE DUMPING MARGINS—Continued 

Exporter Producer Weighted–Average Deposit Rate 

Jiangsu By–products ................................................. Jiangsu By–products 70.28 

China–Wide Rate ....................................................... ............................................................................ 264.09 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d) of 

the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

subject merchandise, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. We will instruct CBP to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond equal to the weighted–average 

amount by which the normal value 

exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. 

The suspension of liquidation will 

remain in effect until further notice. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary affirmative determination of 

sales at less than fair value. Because we 

have postponed the deadline for our 

final determination to 135 days from the 

date of publication of this preliminary 

determination, section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act requires the ITC to make its final 

determination as to whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports of 

artist canvas, or sales (or the likelihood 

of sales) for importation, of the subject 

merchandise within 45 days of our final 

determination. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs or other written comments 

may be submitted to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration no 

later than seven days after the date of 

the final verification report is issued in 

this proceeding and rebuttal briefs 

limited to issues raised in case briefs no 

later than five days after the deadline 

date for case briefs. A list of authorities 

used and an executive summary of 

issues should accompany any briefs 

submitted to the Department. This 

summary should be limited to five pages 

total, including footnotes. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, we will hold a public hearing, if 

requested, to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a 

request for a hearing is made, we intend 

to hold the hearing three days after the 

deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs 

at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230, at a time and 

location to be determined. Parties 

should confirm by telephone the date, 

time, and location of the hearing two 

days before the scheduled date. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 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. 

We will make our final determination 

no later than 135 days after the date of 

publication of this preliminary 

determination, pursuant to section 

735(a)(2) of the Act. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: October 28, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–22149 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–201–830 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Carbon 

and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests by 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on carbon 

and alloy steel wire rod (‘‘wire rod’’) 

from Mexico for the period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) October 1, 2003, through 

September 30, 2004. 

We preliminarily determine that 

during the POR, Hylsa Puebla, S.A. de 

C.V. (‘‘Hylsa Puebla’’) and Siderurgica 

Lazaro Cardenas Las Truchas S.A. de 

C.V., and its affiliate, CCC Steel GmbH, 

collectively (‘‘SICARTSA’’) sold subject 

merchandise at less than normal value 

(‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary results are 

adopted in the final results of this 

administrative review, we will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties 

equal to the difference between the 

export price (‘‘EP’’) and NV. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tipten Troidl or Jolanta Lawska at (202) 

482–1767 or (202) 482–8362, 

respectively, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 3, Import Administration, Room 

1870, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 29, 2002, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on wire rod 

from Mexico; see Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and 

Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, 

Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 

FR 65945 (October 29,2002). On October 

1, 2004, we published in the Federal 

Register the notice of Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation: Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 69 

FR 58889 (October 1, 2004). 

On October 18, 2004, we received a 

request for review from SICARTSA: On 

October 27, 2004, we received a request 

for review from petitioners,1 with 

respect to Hylsa Puebla and Sicartsa: On 

October 29, 2004, Hylsa Puebla and its