[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 92 (Thursday, May 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26922-26927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11463]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-821-819]


Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to timely requests, the Department of Commerce 
(the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on magnesium metal from the Russian Federation 
for the period of review (POR) April 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009. 
The review covers two respondents, PSC VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation 
(AVISMA) and Solikamsk Magnesium Works (SMW).
    The Department preliminarily determines that AVISMA did not make 
sales to the United States at less than normal value. 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 no antidumping duties on entries by AVISMA 
during the POR. SMW reported that it had no shipments to the United 
States during the POR. The preliminary results are listed below in the 
section titled ``Preliminary Results of Review.''

DATES: Effective Date: May 13, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hermes Pinilla or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3477 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department published the antidumping duty order on magnesium 
metal from the Russian Federation on April 15, 2005. See Notice of 
Antidumping Duty Order: Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation, 70 
FR 19930 (April 15, 2005) (Antidumping Duty Order). On April 1, 2009, 
the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of 
opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on magnesium metal from the Russian Federation. See Antidumping 
or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 74 FR 14771 (April 1, 
2009). On April 30, 2009, AVISMA, a Russian Federation producer of the 
subject merchandise, requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review. On April 30, 2009, U.S. Magnesium Corporation 
LLC, the petitioner in this proceeding, requested that the Department 
conduct an administrative review with respect to AVISMA and SMW, 
another Russian Federation producer of the subject merchandise. On May 
29, 2009, the Department published a notice of initiation of an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on magnesium metal 
from the Russian Federation for the period April 1, 2008, through March 
31, 2009. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 74 FR 25711 (May 29, 2009).
    On December 16, 2009, the Department extended the deadline for the 
preliminary results of this antidumping duty administrative review from 
December 31, 2009, to April 30, 2010. See Magnesium Metal from the 
Russian Federation: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 66619 
(December 16, 2009).

[[Page 26923]]

    As explained in the Memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration, the Department has exercised its discretion 
to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal 
Government from February 5 through February 12, 2010. Thus, the 
deadline in this segment of the proceeding has been extended by seven 
days. The revised deadline for the preliminary results of the 
antidumping administrative review on magnesium metal from the Russian 
Federation is now May 7, 2010. See Memorandum to the Record from Ronald 
Lorentzen, DAS for Import Administration, regarding ``Tolling of 
Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During 
the Recent Snowstorm,'' dated February 12, 2010.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order is magnesium metal (also 
referred to as magnesium), which includes primary and secondary pure 
and alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material 
source, form, shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing 
by weight primarily the element magnesium. Primary magnesium is 
produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary 
magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium 
metal. The magnesium covered by the order includes blends of primary 
and secondary magnesium.
    The subject merchandise includes the following pure and alloy 
magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium, 
including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, 
rounds, billets, and other shapes, and magnesium ground, chipped, 
crushed, or machined into raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, 
briquettes, and other shapes: (1) Products that contain at least 99.95 
percent magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as ``ultra-pure'' 
magnesium); (2) products that contain less than 99.95 percent but not 
less than 99.8 percent magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as 
``pure'' magnesium); and (3) chemical combinations of magnesium and 
other material(s) in which the magnesium content is 50 percent or 
greater, but less that 99.8 percent, by weight, whether or not 
conforming to an ``ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy.''
    The scope of the order excludes: (1) Magnesium that is in liquid or 
molten form; and (2) mixtures containing 90 percent or less magnesium 
in granular or powder form by weight and one or more of certain non-
magnesium granular materials to make magnesium-based reagent mixtures, 
including lime, calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, 
calcium carbonate, carbon, slag coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline 
syenite, feldspar, alumina (Al203), calcium aluminate, soda ash, 
hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal, 
cryolite, silica/fly ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys, 
dolomite lime, and colemanite.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This second exclusion for magnesium-based reagent mixtures 
is based on the exclusion for reagent mixtures in the 2001 
investigations of magnesium from the People's Republic of China, 
Israel, and the Russian Federation. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium in 
Granular Form From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 49345 
(September 27, 2001), and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From Israel, 66 FR 49349 
(September 27, 2001); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not 
Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation, 66 
FR 49347 (September 27, 2001). These mixtures are not magnesium 
alloys, because they are not chemically combined in liquid form and 
cast into the same ingot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable 
under items 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.30.00, and 8104.90.00 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the 
HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description of the merchandise covered by the order is 
dispositive. See Id.

SMW

    On June 1, 2009, SMW submitted a letter indicating that it made no 
sales to the United States during the POR. We have not received any 
comments on SMW's submission. We confirmed SMW's claim of no shipments 
by issuing a ``No Shipments Inquiry'' to CBP and by reviewing 
electronic CBP data. See Memorandum to the File, entitled ``Magnesium 
Metal from the Russian Federation--Placement of Customs Data on the 
Record,'' dated May 7, 2010.
    With regard to SMW's claim of no shipments, our practice since 
implementation of the 1997 regulations concerning no-shipment 
respondents has been to rescind the administrative review if the 
respondent certifies that it had no shipments and we have confirmed 
through our examination of CBP data that there were no shipments of 
subject merchandise during the POR. See Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19, 1997), and Oil 
Country Tubular Goods from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 70 FR 
53161, 53162 (September 7, 2005), unchanged in Oil Country Tubular 
Goods from Japan: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 95 (January 3, 2006). As a result, in 
such circumstances, we normally instruct CBP to liquidate any entries 
from the no-shipment company at the deposit rate in effect on the date 
of entry.
    In our May 6, 2003, ``automatic assessment'' clarification, we 
explained that, where respondents in an administrative review 
demonstrate that they had no knowledge of sales through resellers to 
the United States, we would instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at 
the all-others rate applicable to the proceeding. See Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
    Based on SMW's assertion of no shipments and confirmation of that 
claim by CBP data, we preliminarily determine that SMW had no sales to 
the United States during the POR.
    Because ``as entered'' liquidation instructions do not alleviate 
the concerns which the May 2003 clarification was intended to address, 
we find it appropriate in this case to instruct CBP to liquidate any 
existing entries of merchandise produced by SMW and exported by other 
parties at the all-others rate should we continue to find at the time 
of our final results that SMW had no shipments of subject merchandise 
from the Russian Federation. See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 
from India: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 73 FR 77610, 77612 (December 19, 2008). In addition, the 
Department finds that it is more consistent with the May 2003 
clarification not to rescind the review in part in these circumstances 
but, rather, to complete the review with respect to SMW and issue 
appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the 
review. See the Assessment Rates section of this notice below.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act), we verified the information submitted by AVISMA with regard 
to its sales in the United States.
    We used standard verification procedures including examination of 
relevant accounting and production records and original source 
documents provided by AVISMA. See U.S. Sales Verification Report, 
entitled ``Verification of the Sales Response of PSC VSMPO-AVISMA 
Corporation in

[[Page 26924]]

the Antidumping Review of Magnesium Metal from the Russian 
Federation,'' (U.S. Sales Verification Report), dated May 7, 2010. We 
are scheduled to conduct the home-market sales and cost-of-production 
verifications in mid-May 2010. Any post-preliminary results 
verification findings will be reflected in the final results.

Date of Sale

    The petitioner has alleged that AVISMA made sales to certain U.S. 
customers where the issuance of invoices for such sales occurred in the 
2007/08 POR but the subject merchandise was shipped during the 2008/09 
POR. The petitioner alleges that these sales should be reported in the 
2008/09 POR because the material terms of these ``bill-and-hold sales'' 
were not established until AVISMA shipped its merchandise to its U.S. 
customers (and received payment), not when it issued the invoice. 
AVISMA has contended that the date of sale is the invoice date because 
the terms of sales were final and, as a result, it was appropriate to 
report the bill-and-hold sales in the completed 2007/08 administrative 
review. The petitioner disputes AVISMA's claim and has requested that 
the Department require AVISMA to report the disputed sales in this 
review. The petitioner contends that, if AVISMA does not report these 
sales, the Department should apply facts available with an adverse 
inference to AVISMA for not acting to the best of its ability.
    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states 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's or producer's records kept in the ordinary 
course of business. The Preamble to those regulations clarifies that, 
``* * * absent satisfactory evidence that the terms of sale were 
finally established on a different date, the Department will presume 
that the date of sale is the date of invoice.'' See Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties, 62 FR at 27349.
    As mentioned above, we have conducted the verification of AVISMA's 
U.S. sales response. We examined AVISMA's bill-and-hold arrangements 
with several of its U.S. customers for various products it sells in the 
United States. We found that AVISMA issues the invoice with set terms 
of the sale but, at the request of its bill-and-hold customers, it 
ships the items at a later date. We determined that the material terms 
of sale for these bill-and-hold transactions did not change between the 
date of invoice and date of shipment. Through our examination of 
AVISMA's accounting records, we found that, although the merchandise 
may be in AVISMA's warehouse for some time until it ships the 
merchandise to its U.S. customers, AVISMA treats the inventory in its 
normal books and records as if it left the warehouse for shipment on 
the date it issues the invoice. Thus, according to AVISMA's books and 
records, the company treats the sales made through the bill-and-hold 
methodology as final sales although AVISMA may not have shipped the 
merchandise to its U.S. customer until sometime later or may not have 
received payment for the sale until after it shipped the merchandise. 
For further information, See U.S. Sales Verification Report and 
Decision Memorandum entitled ``Magnesium Metal from the Russian 
Federation--Bill-and-Hold Sales Invoiced During the 2007/2008 
Administrative Review,'' dated May 7, 2010.
    Finally, through our examination of customs documents related to 
the bill-and-hold sales, we found that all of the disputed sales 
entered for consumption during the 2007/08 POR and, therefore, will be 
liquidated in accordance with the final court ruling concerning the 
final results of that review. See U.S. Sales Verification Report.

Constructed Export Price

    AVISMA identified all of its sales to the United States as 
constructed export-price (CEP) sales because the U.S. sales were made 
for the account of AVISMA by AVISMA's U.S. affiliate, VSMPO-Tirus, 
U.S., Inc. (Tirus US), to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. 
AVISMA and Tirus US are affiliated because Tirus US is a wholly owned 
subsidiary of AVISMA. See section 771(33)(E) of the Act. U.S. sales to 
the first unaffiliated party were made in the United States by the U.S. 
affiliate, thus satisfying the legal requirements for considering these 
transactions to be CEP sales. See section 772(b) of the Act.
    We calculated CEP based on the packed, C.I.F. price to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) 
of the Act, for AVISMA's CEP sales we made deductions from price for 
movement expenses and discounts, where appropriate. More specifically, 
we deducted early-payment discounts, expenses for Russian railway 
freight from plant to port, freight insurance, Russian brokerage, 
handling and port charges, international freight and marine insurance, 
U.S. customs duties, U.S. brokerage, handling, and port charges, U.S. 
warehousing, and U.S. inland freight.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted direct 
selling expenses and indirect selling expenses related to commercial 
activity in the United States. See also Statement of Administrative 
Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 
103-316, vol. 1 (1994) at 823-824. Pursuant to sections 772(d)(3) and 
772(f) of the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP profit allocated to 
expenses deducted under section 772(d)(1) of the Act. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on the total 
revenues realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets, less all 
expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to 
expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity based on the 
ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and 
home markets. See AVISMA Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum dated 
May 7, 2010.

Normal Value

    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home-market and 
U.S. sales and absent any information that a particular market 
situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper comparison, 
we determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold by AVISMA 
in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison 
with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States under 
section 773(a) of the Act. AVISMA's quantity of sales in its home 
market was greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S. market. 
Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we 
considered basing normal value on the prices at which the foreign like 
product was first sold for consumption in the exporting country in the 
usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to 
the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the CEP sales.
    In accordance with section 771(16)(A) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by AVISMA that are covered by the description in the 
Scope of the Order section, above, and that were sold in the home 
market during the POR to be foreign like products for purposes of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In 
accordance with sections 771(16)(B) and (C) of the Act, where there 
were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to 
U.S. sales, we considered comparing U.S. sales to the most similar 
foreign like product on the basis of the product characteristics we 
determined to be the most appropriate for purposes of matching 
products.

[[Page 26925]]

Cost-of-Production Analysis

    We disregarded below-cost sales in accordance with section 773(b) 
of the Act in the last completed review with respect to AVISMA in which 
it participated. See Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 52642, 52643 
(September 10, 2008) (06/07 Final). Therefore, we have reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product 
under consideration for the determination of normal value in this 
review may have been made at prices below the cost of production (COP) 
as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant 
to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted a COP investigation of 
sales by AVISMA in the home market.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for home-market 
selling, general and administrative expenses, interest expense, and 
packing expenses.
    In its normal books and records, AVISMA treats raw magnesium as a 
by-product of its titanium operations. Raw magnesium and chlorine gas 
are produced jointly during the third major processing step, the 
electrolysis stage (i.e., the split-off point), during which both 
products become identifiable physically. The calculation of the by-
product value for raw magnesium starts with the total sales value of 
finished goods produced. This amount is then reduced by the budgeted 
profit, selling expenses, and post-split-off costs. The remaining 
amount is deemed to represent the total net realizable value (NRV) of 
raw magnesium. This value is used to value the raw magnesium offset in 
calculating a total NRV for chlorine gas.
    For reporting purposes in this administrative review, AVISMA 
departed from its normal books and records and estimated the value of 
chlorine gas based on a facility it intends to operate in the future. 
It also treated chlorine gas as a by-product of raw magnesium 
production. AVISMA valued chlorine gas at the estimated cost of liquid 
chlorine plus estimated transportation and gasification costs it 
estimated for the new facility. It then deducted the total estimated 
value of chlorine gas from the total joint costs and assigned the 
remaining joint costs to raw magnesium. See AVISMA's August 4, 2009, 
section D response at 34-36 and exhibits 4B and 4C.
    We agree with AVISMA that for purposes of this review it is proper 
to depart from its normal books and records. We preliminarily find, 
however, that it is reasonable to treat chlorine gas and market-quality 
raw magnesium produced jointly at the split-off point as co-products 
because the total NRV of chlorine gas relative to the total NRV of 
market-quality raw magnesium is significant. This is consistent with 
our findings in the 2006/2007 review of the order where we treated 
chlorine gas and market-quality raw magnesium as co-products. See 06/07 
Final, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 1-3.
    For the purpose of allocating the split-off-point joint costs to 
these two co-products, we estimated the NRV of chlorine gas. We 
estimated the NRV of chlorine gas following the same replacement-value 
method we used in the 2006/2007 review. To calculate the NRV of market-
quality raw magnesium, we started with AVISMA's 2002 average values 
reported for pure magnesium and magnesium metal products. From these 
average values we deducted the separable costs incurred by AVISMA 
beyond the split-off point. We also accounted for the actual quantity 
of market-quality raw magnesium used to produce one metric ton of pure 
magnesium, or magnesium metal, by application of the product-specific 
yield ratio.
    We recalculated the joint costs incurred at the split-off point 
during the POR by adding back the market-quality raw magnesium by-
product offset and removing the cost of chlorine gas (i.e., the 
chlorine gas produced at split-off point and recycled back to the 
previous processing stage) from the inputs used in the production of 
market-quality raw magnesium and chlorine gas. Likewise, we adjusted 
the split-off-point chlorine-gas production quantity for the quantities 
recycled back to the previous processing stage.
    We allocated the split-off-point joint costs to chlorine gas and 
market-quality raw magnesium in proportion to their respective NRVs. We 
used the net interest expense ratio that AVISMA calculated based on the 
amounts reported in AVISMA's 2008 fiscal-year audited consolidated 
financial statements prepared in accordance with International 
Financial Reporting Standards.
    For more details, See Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director, 
Office of Accounting, through Michael P. Martin, Lead Accountant, from 
Sheikh M. Hannan, Senior Accountant, entitled ``Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--
PSC VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation and VSMPO--Tirus US Inc.,'' dated May 7, 
2010.
    After calculating the COP and in accordance with section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act, we tested whether home-market sales of the foreign like 
product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of 
time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared 
model-specific COPs to the reported home-market prices less any 
applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates. Pursuant to 
section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 percent of a 
respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, 
we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because the 
below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an 
extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of a respondent's 
sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we disregard 
the below-cost sales because they were made in substantial quantities 
within an extended period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and 
(C) of the Act and because, based on comparisons of prices to weighted-
average COPs for the POR, such sales were at prices which would not 
permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on this test, we 
did not disregard any of AVISMA's home-market sales of magnesium metal 
because all such sales passed the cost test. See AVISMA Preliminary 
Results Analysis Memorandum dated May 7, 2010.

Level of Trade

    In the U.S. market, AVISMA made CEP sales. In the case of CEP 
sales, we identified the level of trade based on the price after the 
deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. 
Although the starting price for CEP sales was based on sales made by 
the affiliated reseller to unaffiliated customers through two channels 
of distribution, sales to end-users and distributors, AVISMA reported 
similar selling activities associated with all sales to the affiliated 
reseller (i.e., at the CEP level of trade).
    AVISMA reported one channel of distribution in the home market, 
sales to end-users. We found that this channel of distribution 
constitutes a single level of trade in the home market. To determine 
whether home-market sales were made at a different level of trade than 
U.S. sales, we examined stages in the

[[Page 26926]]

marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution 
between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. We found that there 
were significant differences between the selling activities associated 
with the CEP level of trade and those associated with the home-market 
level of trade and, thus, we found the CEP level of trade to be 
different from the home-market level of trade. Further, we found the 
CEP level of trade to be at a less advanced stage of distribution than 
the home-market level of trade.
    Because AVISMA reported no home-market levels of trade that were 
equivalent to the CEP level of trade and because we determined that the 
CEP level of trade was at a less advanced stage than the single home-
market level of trade, we were unable to determine a level-of-trade 
adjustment based on the respondent's home-market sales of the foreign 
like product. Furthermore, we have no other information that provides 
an appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For 
AVISMA's CEP sales, we made a CEP-offset adjustment in accordance with 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. For a description of our level-of-
trade analysis for these preliminary results, See AVISMA Preliminary 
Results Analysis Memorandum dated May 7, 2010.

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of the preliminary results and in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act, we made currency conversions based on the 
official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as 
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. See 19 CFR 351.415.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margins on magnesium metal from the 
Russian Federation exist for the period April 1, 2008, through March 
31, 2009:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSC VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation................................       0.00
Solikamsk Magnesium Works...................................          *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has an
  individual rate from the last segment of the proceeding in which the
  firm had shipments or sales.

Disclosure and Public Comment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to any 
party to the proceeding the calculations performed in connection with 
these preliminary results within five days after the date of 
publication of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), 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 last verification report issued in this review 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 19 CFR 351.310, 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 requested, a hearing 
will be held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal 
briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, 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 of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c). Requests should contain (1) the party's name, address, and 
telephone number, (2) the number of participants, and (3) 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. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate 
for AVISMA reflecting these preliminary results of review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Assessment of Antidumping Duties. This clarification 
will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by 
AVISMA or SMW for which AVISMA or SMW did not know their merchandise 
was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct 
CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries of merchandise produced by AVISMA 
or SMW at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate 
company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this 
clarification, See Assessment of Antidumping Duties.
    The Department will issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the 
publication of the final results of review.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
completion 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 of the final 
results of this administrative review, as provided in section 751(a)(1) 
of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rate for the reviewed firms will be 
those established in the final results of this review; (2) for 
previously reviewed or investigated companies not covered in this 
review, 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 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 subject merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter 
nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous segment 
of the proceeding, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the all-
others rate established in the LTFV investigation, which is 21.01 
percent. See Antidumping Duty Order. These cash-deposit requirements, 
when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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.
    The preliminary results of this administrative review and this 
notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) 
and 777(i)(1) of the Act.


[[Page 26927]]


    Dated: May 7, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-11463 Filed 5-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P