67440 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

1The petitioner is the Coalition for Fair Preserved 

Mushroom Trade which includes the following 

domestic companies: L.K. Bowman, Inc., Monterey 

Mushrooms, Inc., Mushroom Canning Company, 

and Sunny Dell Foods, Inc. 

POLYVINYL ALCOHOL FROM THE PRC 

Producer/Manufacturer/ 

Exporter 

Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percent) 

SVW .............................. 8.04 % 

Disclosure 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed for these 

preliminary results to the parties within 

five days of the date of publication of 

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Any interested party may 

request a hearing within 30 days of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if 

requested, will generally be held two 

days after the scheduled date for 

submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 

CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may 

submit case briefs and/or written 

comments no later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results of review. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and 

rebuttals to written comments, limited 

to issues raised in such briefs or 

comments, may be filed no later than 37 

days after the date of publication. See 19 

CFR 351.309(d). Further, parties 

submitting written comments should 

provide the Department with an 

additional copy of those comments on 

diskette. The Department will issue the 

final results of this administrative 

review, which will include the results of 

its analysis of issues raised in any 

comments, and at a hearing, within 120 

days of publication of these preliminary 

results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. Within 15 days of 

the completion of this review, the 

Department will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries of subject merchandise. The 

Department will issue appropriate 

assessment instructions directly to CBP 

upon completion of this review. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of review, we will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting rate against 

the entered customs value for the 

subject merchandise on each importer’s/ 

customer’s entries during the POR. 

Cash–Deposit Requirements 

The following cash–deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash 

deposit rate for the reviewed company 

will be the rate listed in the final results 

of review (except where the rate for a 

particular company is de minimis, i.e., 

less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit 

will be required for that company); (2) 

for previously investigated companies 

not listed above that have separate rate, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the company–specific rate published for 

the most recent period; (3) the cash 

deposit rate for all other PRC exporters 

will be 97.86 percent, the current PRC–

wide rate; and (4) the cash deposit rate 

for all non–PRC exporters will be the 

rate applicable to the PRC exporter that 

supplied that exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until publication of the 

final results of the next administrative 

review. 

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 antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

preliminary results of review in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

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

351.221(b). 

Dated: October 31, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–22143 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–533–813 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms from 

India: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to timely requests 

by Agro Dutch Industries, Ltd. (Agro 

Dutch) and the petitioner,1 the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

preserved mushrooms from India with 

respect to Agro Dutch. The period of 

review (POR) is February 1, 2004, 

through January 31, 2005. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

have been made below normal value 

(NV). Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. If 

these preliminary results are adopted in 

our final results of administrative 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David J. Goldberger or Gemal Brangman, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4136 or (202) 482–

3773, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 19, 1999, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

amended final determination and 

antidumping duty order on certain 

preserved mushrooms from India (64 FR 

8311). 

In response to timely requests by a 

manufacturer/exporter, Agro Dutch, and 

the petitioner, the Department 

published a notice of initiation of an 

administrative review with respect to 

the following companies: Agro Dutch, 

Alpine Biotech Ltd. (Alpine Biotech), 

Dinesh Agro Products, Ltd. (Dinesh 

Agro), Flex Foods, Ltd. (Flex Foods), 

Himalya International, Ltd. (Himalya), 

KICM (Madras) Ltd. (KICM), Mandeep 

Mushrooms Ltd. (Mandeep), Premier 

Mushroom Farms (Premier), Saptarishi 

Agro Industries Ltd. (Saptarishi Agro), 

Transchem Ltd. (Transchem), Techtran 

Agro Industries Limited (Techtran) and 

Weikfield Agro Products Ltd. 

(Weikfield) (70 FR 14643, March 23, 

2005). The POR is February 1, 2004, 

through January 31, 2005. 

On March 29, 2005, the Department 

issued antidumping duty questionnaires 

to the above–mentioned companies. We 

received responses to these 

questionnaires during the period May 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 67441 

through June 2005 from Agro Dutch, 

Flex Foods, Premier, and Himalaya. 

In May 2005, the petitioner timely 

withdrew its request for review with 

respect to KICM, and in June 2005, the 

petitioner timely withdrew its request 

for review with respect to Alpine 

Biotech, Dinesh Agro, Flex Foods, 

Himalya, Mandeep, Premier, Saptarishi 

Agro, Transchem, Techtran and 

Weikfield. Accordingly, we published a 

Notice of Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 40982 (July 15, 2005), 

with respect to these companies. 

We issued supplemental 

questionnaires to Agro Dutch in August 

and October 2005, and received 

responses in September and October 

2005. 

On September 29, 2005, the petitioner 

submitted comments with respect to the 

preliminary results calculations for Agro 

Dutch. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are certain preserved mushrooms, 

whether imported whole, sliced, diced, 

or as stems and pieces. The preserved 

mushrooms covered under this order are 

the species Agaricus bisporus and 

Agaricus bitorquis. ‘‘Preserved 

mushrooms’’ refer to mushrooms that 

have been prepared or preserved by 

cleaning, blanching, and sometimes 

slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are 

then packed and heated in containers 

including but not limited to cans or 

glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, 

including but not limited to water, 

brine, butter or butter sauce. Preserved 

mushrooms may be imported whole, 

sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. 

Included within the scope of this order 

are ‘‘brined’’ mushrooms, which are 

presalted and packed in a heavy salt 

solution to provisionally preserve them 

for further processing. 

Excluded from the scope of this order 

are the following: (1) All other species 

of mushroom, including straw 

mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled 

mushrooms, including ‘‘refrigerated’’ or 

‘‘quick blanched mushrooms≥; (3) dried 

mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and 

(5) ‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified’’ or 

‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms, which are 

prepared or preserved by means of 

vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain 

oil or other additives. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is currently classifiable under 

subheadings 2003.10.0127, 

2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 

2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 

2003.10.0153 and 0711.51.0000 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of this 

order dispositive. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of certain 

preserved mushrooms by the 

respondents to the United States were 

made at less than normal value (NV), we 

compared export price (EP), as 

appropriate, to the NV, as described in 

the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’

sections of this notice. 

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

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

we compared the EPs of individual U.S. 

transactions to the weighted–average 

NV of the foreign like product where 

there were sales made in the ordinary 

course of trade, as discussed in the 

‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’ section 

below. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

produced by the respondent covered by 

the description in the ‘‘Scope of the 

Order’’ section, above, to be foreign like 

products for purposes of determining 

appropriate product comparisons to 

U.S. sales. We compared Agro Dutch’s 

U.S. sales to sales made in the third–

country market within the 

contemporaneous window period, 

which extends from three months prior 

to the U.S. sale until two months after 

the sale. Where there were no sales of 

identical merchandise in the 

comparison market made in the 

ordinary course of trade to compare to 

U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to 

sales of the most similar foreign like 

product made in the ordinary course of 

trade. In making the product 

comparisons, we matched foreign like 

products based on the physical 

characteristics reported by the 

respondents in the following order: 

preservation method, container type, 

mushroom style, weight, container 

solution, and label type. 

Export Price 

We used EP methodology, in 

accordance with section 772(a) of the 

Act, because the subject merchandise 

was sold directly by Agro Dutch to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States prior to importation and 

constructed export price (CEP) 

methodology was not otherwise 

indicated. We based EP on packed 

prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States. 

Agro Dutch reported its U.S. sales on 

an FOB Indian port, CIF or ex–dock 

duty paid basis. We made deductions 

from the starting price, where 

appropriate, for international freight, 

foreign inland freight, transportation 

insurance, foreign and U.S. brokerage 

and handling, and U.S. duty, in 

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

Act and 19 CFR 351.402. 

Agro Dutch claimed a freight expense 

offset for some of the freight expenses 

associated with its export shipments to 

the United States and Israel, the third–

country market. Although Agro Dutch 

has provided information that appears 

to show a direct correlation between 

expenses incurred and the offset 

payments made by the Indian 

government in this review, we did not 

make this adjustment because, as we 

stated in the previous review (see 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From 

India: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 10597, 10599 (March 4, 

2005)), such an adjustment is not 

contemplated by the Act or the 

Department’s regulations. Specifically, 

the program described by Agro Dutch, 

granting an international freight subsidy 

from the Indian Agricultural and 

Processed Food Products Export 

Development Authority for the export of 

certain food products, is not contingent 

upon importation of inputs used to 

produce the exported subject 

merchandise – the duty drawback 

system contemplated under section 

772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Neither is it 

packing (as contemplated under section 

772(c)(1)(A) of the Act) nor the amount 

of any countervailing duty, as there is 

no companion countervailing duty 

investigation on certain preserved 

mushrooms from India (see section 

772(c)(1)(C) of the Act). Accordingly, we 

disregarded the claimed amounts. 

Agro Dutch reported that, in certain 

instances, it provided customers with a 

number of extra cardboard cartons to 

replace boxes that are damaged during 

shipment. The petitioners contend that 

these cartons are a free merchandise 

discount and that, in the absence of a 

reported value, the Department should 

deduct the reported packing cost from 

the gross unit price. According to our 

analysis, it is not clear whether the cost 

of these extra boxes is considered a 

selling expense, or whether it is already 

accounted for in Agro Dutch’s packing 

material cost. However, even if we were 

to consider the value of the boxes as a 

selling expense, the per–unit expense 

would be well under 0.33 percent ad 

valorem, the Department’s threshold 

under 19 CFR 351.413 for insignificant 

adjustments (see discussion and 

calculation in ‘‘Agro Dutch Preliminary 

Results Notes and Margin Calculation,’’

Memorandum to the File dated October 

67442 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

2Where NV is based on constructed value (CV), 

we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the 

sales from which we derive selling expenses and 

profit for CV, where possible. 

31, 2005). Therefore, we have 

disregarded any adjustment for these 

boxes, in accordance with section 

777A(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.413. 

Normal Value 

In order to determine whether there 

was a sufficient volume of sales in the 

home market to serve as a viable basis 

for calculating NV, we compared the 

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)(C) of the Act. 

We determined that the home market 

was not viable for Agro Dutch because 

Agro Dutch’s aggregate volume of home 

market sales of the foreign like product 

was less than five percent of its 

aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the 

subject merchandise. However, we 

determined that the third–country 

market of Israel was viable, in 

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

of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to 

section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, we used 

third–country sales as a basis for NV for 

Agro Dutch. 

Level of Trade 

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act 

states that, to the extent practicable, the 

Department will calculate NV based on 

sales at the same level of trade (LOT) as 

the EP or CEP. Sales are made at 

different LOTs if they are made at 

different marketing stages (or their 

equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). 

Substantial differences in selling 

activities are a necessary, but not 

sufficient, condition for determining 

that there is a difference in the stages of 

marketing, id.; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa 

(Plate from South Africa) 62 FR 61731, 

61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to 

determine whether the comparison sales 

were at different stages in the marketing 

process from the U.S. sales, we 

reviewed the distribution system in 

each market (i.e., the ‘‘chain of 

distribution’’), including selling 

functions, class of customer (‘‘customer 

category’’), and the level of selling 

expenses for each type of sale. 

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

the Act, in identifying levels of trade for 

EP and comparison market sales (i.e., 

NV based on either home market or 

third–country prices2), we consider the 

starting prices before any adjustments. 

For CEP sales, we consider only the 

selling activities reflected in the price 

after the deduction of expenses and 

profit under section 772(d) of the Act. 

See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United 

States, 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314–1315 (Fed. 

Cir. 2001). 

When the Department is unable to 

match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign 

like product in the comparison market 

at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the 

Department may compare the U.S. sale 

to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market. In comparing EP or 

CEP sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market, where available 

data make it practicable, and where the 

difference affects price comparability, 

we make an LOT adjustment under 

section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 

for CEP sales only, if an NV LOT is more 

remote from the factory than the CEP 

LOT and there is no basis for 

determining whether the difference in 

LOTs between NV and CEP affects price 

comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment 

was practicable), the Department shall 

grant a CEP offset, as provided in 

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

from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732–33. 

We obtained information from Agro 

Dutch regarding the marketing stages 

involved in sales to the reported 

comparison market and U.S. sales, 

including a description of the selling 

activities performed for each channel of 

distribution. Agro Dutch sold to 

importers/distributors through one 

channel of distribution in both the U.S. 

and Israeli markets. As described in its 

questionnaire response, Agro Dutch 

performs limited selling activities on 

behalf of its U.S. and third country 

sales. Furthermore, any selling activities 

performed (e.g., sales negotiation and 

transportation arrangement) do not vary 

by channel of distribution, type of 

customer, or market. Therefore, Agro 

Dutch’s sales channels are at the same 

LOT. Accordingly, all sales comparisons 

are at the same LOT for Agro Dutch and 

an adjustment pursuant to section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is not warranted. 

Cost of Production Analysis 

In the most recently completed 

administrative review as of March 29, 

2005, when the questionnaire was 

issued (i.e., the 2002–2003 review), we 

found that Agro Dutch had made sales 

below the cost of production. See Notice 

of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms from India, 69 FR 

51630 (August 20, 2004). Subsequently, 

the Department also disregarded certain 

sales made by Agro Dutch in the 2003–

2004 administrative review that were 

determined to be below the cost of 

production (see Notice of Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

from India, 70 FR 37757, June 30, 2005). 

Thus, in accordance with section 

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

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that Agro Dutch made sales in the third 

country at prices below the cost of 

producing the merchandise in the 

current review period. Accordingly, we 

instructed Agro Dutch to respond to the 

section D (Cost of Production) 

questionnaire. 

A. Calculation of Cost of Production 

We calculated the cost of production 

(COP) on a product–specific basis, based 

on the sum of Agro Dutch’s respective 

costs of materials and fabrication for the 

foreign like product, plus amounts for 

selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, interest expense, and 

all expenses incidental to placing the 

foreign like product in a condition 

packed and ready for shipment in 

accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the 

Act. 

We relied on the COP information 

submitted by Agro Dutch, except for the 

adjustments discussed below. 

1. We revised the material costs for 

fresh mushrooms to account for our 

revaluation of work–in-process (WIP) 

inventory change. Agro Dutch’s reported 

fresh mushroom costs incorporated a 

WIP adjustment that included costs for 

items other than fresh mushrooms. 

Based on information in the responses, 

we revised the fresh mushroom growing 

cost to limit the WIP adjustment to fresh 

mushroom–related WIP changes. See 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results,’’ Memorandum to 

Neal Halper from Trinette Ruffin and 

Sheikh M. Hannan dated October 31, 

2005 (Preliminary Results COP 

Calculation Memo). 

2. Agro Dutch calculated the general 

and administrative (G&A) and interest 

expense ratios using the cost of 

manufacture as the denominator. The 

Department’s practice, however, is to 

rely on the cost of goods sold (COGS) as 

the denominator in calculating these 

ratios. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 

Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 

2004) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 12. 

We recalculated the G&A and interest 

expense ratios using COGS data derived 

from information in Agro Dutch’s 

responses. We also recalculated the net 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 67443 

interest expense ratio to include the 

foreign exchange loss on remittance and 

prepayment penalty on loans. See 

Preliminary Results COP Calculation 

Memo. 

On a product–specific basis, we 

compared Agro Dutch’s weighted–

average COP to the prices of third 

country market sales of the foreign like 

product, as required by section 773(b) of 

the Act, in order to determine whether 

these sales were made at prices below 

the COP. For purposes of this 

comparison, we used COP exclusive of 

selling and packing expenses. The 

prices (inclusive of interest revenue, 

where appropriate) were exclusive of 

any applicable billing adjustments, 

movement charges, discounts, direct 

and indirect selling expenses and 

packing. In determining whether to 

disregard third country sales made at 

prices less than their COP, we 

examined, in accordance with sections 

773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether 

such sales were made: (1) within an 

extended period of time in substantial 

quantities; and (2) at prices which did 

not permit the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time. 

B. Results of COP Test 

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

Act, where less than 20 percent of the 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

were at prices less than the COP, we did 

not disregard any below–cost sales of 

that product because we determined 

that the below–cost sales were not made 

in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20 

percent or more of the respondent’s 

sales of a given product during the POR 

were at prices less than the COP, we 

disregarded the below–cost sales 

because we determined that they 

represented ‘‘substantial quantities’’

within an extended period of time, and 

were at prices which would not permit 

the recovery of all costs within a 

reasonable period of time, in accordance 

with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. 

The results of our cost test for Agro 

Dutch indicated that, for certain 

products, more than 20 percent of home 

market or third country sales within an 

extended period of time were at prices 

below COP which would not permit the 

full recovery of all costs within a 

reasonable period of time. See section 

773(b)(2) of the Act. Therefore, in 

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

Act, we excluded these below–cost sales 

from our analysis and used the 

remaining sales as the basis for 

determining NV. 

Price–to-Price Comparisons 

We based NV on the price at which 

the foreign like product is first sold for 

consumption in the third country 

market, in the usual commercial 

quantities and in the ordinary course of 

trade, and at the same LOT as EP, where 

possible, as defined by section 

773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. 

Third country prices were based on 

FOB Indian port prices. We reduced the 

starting price for billing adjustments 

and movement expenses, and increased 

the starting price for interest revenue, 

where appropriate, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.401(c) and (e). 

We disregarded Agro Dutch’s claimed 

freight expense offset for certain third 

country sales granted under the Indian 

government program discussed in the 

‘‘Export Price’’ section above, because 

this type of adjustment to NV is not 

contemplated by section 773(a)(6) of the 

Act or the Department’s regulations. 

We also reduced the starting price for 

packing costs incurred in the 

comparison market, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act, and 

increased NV to account for U.S. 

packing expenses in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We made 

circumstance–of-sale adjustments for 

credit expenses and bank fees, where 

appropriate, pursuant to section 

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

351.410. In addition, we made 

adjustments to NV, where appropriate, 

for differences in costs attributable to 

differences in the physical 

characteristics of the merchandise, 

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

the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 

Calculation of Constructed Value 

We calculated CV in accordance with 

section 773(e) of the Act, which states 

that CV shall be based on the sum of the 

respondent’s cost of materials and 

fabrication for the subject merchandise, 

plus amounts for SG&A expenses, profit 

and U.S. packing costs. We relied on the 

submitted CV information except for the 

adjustments described above under 

‘‘Calculation of Cost of Production.’’

Price–to-Constructed Value 

Comparisons 

We based NV on CV for comparison 

to certain U.S. sales, in accordance with 

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

comparisons to Agro Dutch’s EP sales, 

we made circumstance–of-sale 

adjustments by deducting from CV the 

weighted–average direct selling 

expenses of Agro Dutch’s above–cost 

third country sales, and adding to CV 

the U.S. direct selling expenses, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.410. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions 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. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of this review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

weighted–average dumping margin for 

the period February 1, 2004, through 

January 31, 2005, is as follows: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd 1.59 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this 

proceeding within five days of the 

publication date of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party 

may request a hearing within 30 days of 

publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If 

requested, a hearing will be scheduled 

after determination of the briefing 

schedule. 

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, Room B–099, 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. Requests should contain: 

(1) the party’s name, address and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 

discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Issues raised in the hearing will be 

limited to those raised in the respective 

case briefs. Case briefs from interested 

parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the 

issues raised in the respective case 

briefs, may be submitted in accordance 

with a schedule to be determined. 

Parties who submit case briefs or 

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with each argument 

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 

brief summary of the argument. Parties 

are also encouraged to provide a 

summary of the arguments not to exceed 

five pages and a table of statutes, 

regulations, and cases cited. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any written briefs, not 

later than 120 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

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

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department 

will issue appropriate appraisement 

67444 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

instructions for the companies subject to 

this review directly to CBP within 15 

days of publication of the final results 

of this review. 

With respect to Agro Dutch, we 

intend to calculate importer–specific 

assessment rates for the subject 

merchandise by aggregating the 

dumping margins calculated for all of 

the U.S. sales examined and dividing 

this amount by the total entered value 

of the sales examined. We will instruct 

CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review if any importer–specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). 

See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The final 

results of this review shall be the basis 

for the assessment of antidumping 

duties on entries of merchandise 

covered by the final results of this 

review and for future deposits of 

estimated duties, where applicable. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the 

cash deposit rate for the reviewed 

company will be that established in the 

final results of this review, except if the 

rate is less than 0.50 percent, and 

therefore, de minimis within the 

meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in 

which case the cash deposit rate will be 

zero; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not listed above, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the company–specific rate published for 

the most recent period; (3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, a prior review, or the original 

less–than-fair–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 (4) the cash deposit 

rate for all other manufacturers or 

exporters will continue to be 11.30 

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made 

effective by the LTFV investigation (see 

Notice of Amendment of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

From India, 64 FR 8311 (February 19, 

1999)). These requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

publication of the final results of the 

next administrative review. 

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 antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and notice 

are published in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.221. 

Dated: October 31, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–22142 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–580–813 

Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings 

from Korea: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request by 

Sungkwang Bend Company Ltd. (SKBC), 

the Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order of stainless 

steel butt–weld pipe fittings from Korea. 

The review covers one firm, SKBC. The 

period of review (POR) is February 1, 

2004, through January 31, 2005. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

of stainless steel butt–weld pipe fittings 

from Korea have not been made below 

normal value (NV) for SKBC. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of administrative review, 

we will instruct Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to not assess 

antidumping duties based on the 

difference between constructed export 

price (CEP) and NV. Interested parties 

are invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. Parties who submit 

arguments in this proceeding are 

requested to also submit: 1) a statement 

of the issues, 2) a brief summary of the 

argument, and 3) a table of authorities. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Room 7866, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4475 or 

(202) 482–0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 23, 1993, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on stainless steel butt weld pipe fittings 

from Korea. See Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Stainless Steel Butt Weld 

Pipe Fittings from Korea, 58 FR 11029 

(February 23, 1993). On February 28, 

2005, SKBC requested an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on stainless steel butt- weld pipe fittings 

from Korea in response to the 

Department’s notice of opportunity to 

request a review published in the 

Federal Register. The Department 

initiated the review for SKBC on March 

23, 2005. See Initiation of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 70 FR 14643 (March 23, 2005). 

On March 31, 2005, the Department 

issued sections A, B, and C of the 

antidumping questionnaire to SKBC. 

SKBC filed its response to section A of 

our questionnaire on May 9, 2005. On 

May 27, 2005, SKBC filed its response 

to sections B and C of our questionnaire. 

The Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to SKBC on July 25, 2005. 

SKBC filed its response to this 

questionnaire on August 16, 2005. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are certain welded stainless steel butt–

weld pipe fittings (pipe fittings), 

whether finished or unfinished, under 

14 inches in inside diameter. 

Pipe fittings are used to connect pipe 

sections in piping systems where 

conditions require welded connections. 

The subject merchandise can be used 

where one or more of the following 

conditions is a factor in designing the 

piping system: (1) corrosion of the 

piping system will occur if material 

other than stainless steel is used; (2) 

contamination of the material in the 

system by the system itself must be 

prevented; (3) high temperatures are 

present; (4) extreme low temperatures 

are present; (5) high pressures are 

contained within the system. 

Pipe fittings come in a variety of 

shapes, and the following five are the 

most basic: ‘‘elbows,’’ ‘‘tees,’’

‘‘reducers,’’ ‘‘stub ends,’’ and ‘‘caps.’’

The edges of finished fittings are