```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 153 (Thursday, August 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45937-45941]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18217]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-201-834)

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Mexico: Notice of 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from Quimica Amtex S.A. de C.V. 
(Amtex), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on purified 
carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from Mexico. The review covers exports of 
the subject merchandise to the United States produced and exported by 
Amtex and the period of review (POR) is July 1, 2006, through June 30, 
2007.

[[Page 45938]]

    We preliminarily find that Amtex made sales at less than normal 
value (NV) during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in 
our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties based on 
differences between the export price (EP) or constructed export price 
(CEP) and NV.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with the arguments: (1) a statement of the issues, (2) a 
brief summary of the arguments (no longer than five pages, including 
footnotes) and (3) a table of authorities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 2008

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6312 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department published the antidumping duty order on CMC from 
Mexico on July 11, 2005. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: 
Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, 
and Sweden, 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005). On July 3, 2007, the 
Department published the notice of opportunity to request an 
administrative review of CMC from Mexico for the period of July 1, 
2006, through June 30, 2007. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 
Order, Finding or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 36420 (July 3, 2007). On July 13, 2007, 
respondent Amtex requested an administrative review. On August 24, 
2007, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of 
initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 48613 (August 24, 
2007).
    On August 24, 2007, the Department issued its standard antidumping 
duty questionnaire to Amtex. Amtex submitted its response to section A 
of the Department's questionnaire on September 21, 2007 (Amtex Section 
A Response). Amtex submitted its response to sections B and C of the 
Department's questionnaire on October 12, 2007 (Amtex Sections B and C 
Response).
    On March 6, 2008, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire for sections A, B, and C, to which Amtex responded on 
April 4, 2008 (Amtex Supplemental Response). Because it was not 
practicable to complete this review within the normal time frame, on 
March 17, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice of the extension for the preliminary results of this review. See 
Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Mexico: Extension of Time Limits 
for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 
FR 14222 (March 17, 2008). This extension established the deadline for 
these preliminary results as July 30, 2008. On July 10, 2008, the 
Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Amtex. The 
company filed its response on July 15, 2008.

Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is all purified 
carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), sometimes also referred to as purified 
sodium CMC, polyanionic cellulose, or cellulose gum, which is a white 
to off-white, non-toxic, odorless, biodegradable powder, comprising 
sodium CMC that has been refined and purified to a minimum assay of 90 
percent. Purified CMC does not include unpurified or crude CMC, CMC 
Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, and CMC that is cross-linked through 
heat treatment. Purified CMC is CMC that has undergone one or more 
purification operations which, at a minimum, reduce the remaining salt 
and other by-product portion of the product to less than ten percent. 
The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheading 3912.31.00. This 
tariff classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes; 
however, the written description of the scope of the order is 
dispositive.

Date of Sale

    The Department's regulations state that it will normally use the 
date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records 
kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale. See 19 
CFR 351.401(f)(i). If the Department is satisfied that ``a different 
date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer 
establishes the material terms of sale,'' the Department may choose a 
different date. Id. Amtex has reported the definitive invoice (as 
differentiated from pro forma invoice) as the invoice date. See Amtex 
Supplemental Response at 5. As further discussed below, the Department 
preliminarily determines that the definitive invoice date is the date 
of sale provided it is issued on or before the shipment date; and that 
the shipment date is the date of sale where the invoice is issued after 
the shipment date.
    With regard to the invoice date, Amtex bills some of its sales via 
``delayed invoices'' in both the home and U.S. markets. See Amtex 
Supplemental Response at 5. Delivery is made to the customer and a pro 
forma invoice is issued, but the subject merchandise remains in storage 
and continues to be the property of Amtex until withdrawn for 
consumption by the customer (usually at the end of a regular, monthly 
billing cycle), at which time a definitive invoice is issued. Id. In 
Amtex's normal books and records, it is this definitive invoice date, 
not the pro forma invoice date, that is recorded as the date of sale. 
Id. See Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 
Carboxymethylcellulose from Mexico dated July 30, 2008 (Analysis 
Memorandum), for further discussion of date of sale. A public version 
of this memorandum is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit 
(CRU) located in Room 1117 of the main Department of Commerce Building, 
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of CMC in the United States were made at 
less than NV, we compared U.S. price to NV, as described in the 
``Export Price,'' ``Constructed Export Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' 
sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), we calculated monthly 
weighted-average NVs and compared these to individual U.S. 
transactions. Because we determined Amtex made both EP and CEP sales 
during the POR, we used both EP and CEP as the basis for U.S. price in 
our comparisons.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered 
all products produced by Amtex covered by the description in the 
``Scope of the Order'' section, above, and sold in the home market 
during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate product

[[Page 45939]]

comparisons to U.S. sales. We relied on five characteristics to match 
U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign 
like product (listed in order of priority): 1) grade; 2) viscosity; 3) 
degree of substitution; 4) particle size; and 5) solution gel 
characteristics. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in 
the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the 
next most similar foreign like product on the basis of these product 
characteristics and the reporting instructions listed in the 
Department's August 24, 2007, questionnaire. Because there were 
contemporaneous sales of identical or similar merchandise in the home 
market suitable for comparison to all U.S. sales, we did not compare 
any U.S. sales to constructed value (CV). See the CV section below.

Export Price (EP)

    Section 772(a) of the Tariff Act defines EP as ``the price at which 
the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the 
date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise 
outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United 
States,'' as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Tariff Act. In 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act, we used EP for a 
number of Amtex's U.S. sales because these sales were made before the 
date of importation and were sales directly to unaffiliated customers 
in the United States, and because CEP methodology was not otherwise 
indicated.
    We based EP on the packed, delivered duty paid, cost and freight 
(C&F) or free on board (FOB) prices to unaffiliated customers in the 
United States. Amtex reported no price or billing adjustments, and no 
discounts. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, which included, where 
appropriate, foreign inland freight from the mill to the U.S. border, 
inland freight from the border to the customer or warehouse, and U.S. 
brokerage and handling. We made adjustment for direct expenses (credit 
expenses) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act.

Constructed Export Price (CEP)

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Tariff Act, CEP is ``the 
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 
sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by 
or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or 
by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser 
not affiliated with the producer or exporter,'' as adjusted under 
sections 772(c) and (d) of the Tariff Act. In accordance with section 
772(b) of the Tariff Act, we used CEP for a number of Amtex's U.S. 
sales because Amtex sold merchandise to its affiliate in the United 
States, Amtex Chemicals LLC (Amtex Chemicals or ACUS), which, in turn, 
sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. customers. See, e.g., 
Amtex Section A Response at 13-15. We preliminarily find these U.S. 
sales are properly classified as CEP sales because they occurred in the 
United States and were made through Amtex's U.S. affiliate, Amtex 
Chemicals, to unaffiliated U.S. customers.
    We based CEP on the packed, delivered duty paid or FOB warehouse 
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Amtex reported 
no price or billing adjustments, and no discounts or rebates. We made 
deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, which included, where appropriate, 
foreign inland freight to the border, foreign brokerage and handling, 
customs duties, U.S. brokerage, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. 
warehousing expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the 
Tariff Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling 
expenses (credit costs), inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling 
expenses. However, no adjustment for CEP profit was made for the 
reasons set forth in the Analysis Memorandum. See Analysis Memorandum 
at 11.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market
    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 
(i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product was equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales), we compared the respondent's volume of home 
market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of 
the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the 
Tariff Act. Because Amtex's aggregate volume of home market sales of 
the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined the home 
market was viable. Therefore, we based NV on home market sales in the 
usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.
B. Price-to-Price Comparisons
    We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers. Amtex 
reported no billing adjustments, discounts or rebates in the home 
market. We made deductions for movement expenses including, where 
appropriate, foreign inland freight and insurance, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. In addition, when comparing sales of 
similar merchandise, we made adjustments for differences in cost 
attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the 
merchandise (i.e., DIFMER) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the 
Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments for differences 
in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS 
adjustments for imputed credit expenses. Finally, we deducted home 
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act.
C. Constructed Value (CV)
    We found contemporaneous market matches for all the U.S. sales. 
Therefore, for these preliminary results, it was not necessary to base 
NV on CV. In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, we 
base NV on CV if we are unable to find a contemporaneous comparison 
market match of identical or similar merchandise for the U.S. sale. 
Section 773(e) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of 
the cost of materials and fabrication employed in making the subject 
merchandise, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, 
financial expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. For a more detailed 
explanation of our CV analysis, which relies upon business proprietary 
information, please see the Analysis Memorandum at 11.

Level of Trade, EP, and CEP

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act, to the 
extent practicable, we base NV on sales made in the comparison market 
at the same level of trade (LOT) as the export transaction. The NV LOT 
is based on the starting price of sales in the home market or, when NV 
is based on CV, on the LOT of the sales from which SG&A expenses and 
profit are derived. With respect to CEP transactions in the U.S. 
market, the CEP LOT is defined as the level of the constructed sale 
from the exporter to the importer. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the 
Tariff Act.

[[Page 45940]]

    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP 
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. 
See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more 
remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for 
determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of 
the Tariff Act (the CEP offset provision). See, e.g., Certain Hot-
Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 
17406, 17410 (April 6, 2005), results unchanged in Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil, 70 FR 58683 
(October 7, 2005); see also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes From Canada, 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 
2002) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 8. 
For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the 
price after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section 
772(d) of the Tariff Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 
243 F.3d 1301, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We expect that if the claimed 
LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be 
similar. Conversely, if a party claims that the LOTs are different for 
different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller 
should be dissimilar. See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 
(May 10, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at 
Comment 6.
    Amtex reported it had sold CMC to end-users and distributors in the 
home market and to end-users and distributors in the United States. For 
the home market, Amtex identified two channels of distribution: end 
users (channel 1) and distributors (channel 2). See Amtex's Section A 
Response at A-12 to A-14 and Exhibit A-8; see also Amtex's Section B 
Response at 22-23 and Section C Response at 20. Amtex claimed a single 
level of trade in the home market, stating that it performs essentially 
the same selling functions to either category of customer.
    We obtained information from Amtex regarding the marketing stages 
involved in making its reported home market and U.S. sales. Amtex 
provided a table listing all selling activities it performs, and 
comparing the levels of trade among each channel of distribution in 
each market. See Amtex's Section A Response at Exhibit A-8. We reviewed 
Amtex's claims concerning the intensity to which all selling functions 
were performed for each home market channel of distribution and 
customer category. For virtually all selling functions, the selling 
activities of Amtex were identical in both channels, including sales 
forecasting, personnel training, sales promotion, direct sales 
personnel, technical assistance, warranty service, after-sales service 
and arranging delivery. Id. In fact, Amtex described the level of 
performance as identical across its home market end-user and 
distributor channels of distribution. See Amtex's Section B Response at 
22-23.
    While we find some differences in the selling functions performed 
between the home market end-user and distributor channels of 
distribution, such differences are minor in that they are not the 
principal selling functions but rather specific to a few customers and 
rarely performed. See Amtex's Section A Response at Exhibit A-8. Based 
on our analysis of all of Amtex's home market selling functions, we 
agree with Amtex's characterization of all its home market sales as 
being made at the same level of trade, the NV LOT.
    In the U.S. market, Amtex reported two levels of trade (i.e., EP 
and CEP sales) through two channels of distribution (i.e., end-users 
and distributors). We examined the record with respect to Amtex's EP 
sales and find that for all EP sales, Amtex performed such selling 
functions as sales forecasting, sales promotion, direct sales 
personnel, technical assistance, warranties, after-sales services and 
arranging delivery. Id. In terms of the number and intensity of selling 
functions performed on EP sales, these were indistinguishable between 
sales from Amtex to end users and to distributors. Id. Accordingly, we 
preliminarily determine that all EP sales were made at the same LOT.
    We compared Amtex's EP level of trade to the single NV level of 
trade found in the home market. While we find differences in the levels 
of intensity performed for some of these functions between the home 
market NV level of trade and the EP level of trade, such differences 
are minor (specific to a few customers and rarely performed) and do not 
establish distinct levels of trade within the home market. Based on our 
analysis of all of Amtex's home market and EP selling functions, we 
find these sales were made at the same level of trade.
    For CEP sales, however, we find that the CEP LOT is more advanced 
than the NV LOT. In the Selling Functions Chart, Amtex claims that the 
number and intensity of selling functions performed by Amtex in making 
its sales to Amtex Chemicals are lower than the number and intensity of 
selling functions Amtex performed for its EP sales, and further claims 
that CEP sales are at a less advanced stage than home market sales. See 
Amtex's Section A Response at A-16 and Exhibit A-8. Amtex's Section C 
Response, however, indicates that Amtex's CEP sales are at a more 
advanced marketing stage than are its home market sales. See Amtex's 
Section C Response at 36-37. Amtex reports that most of the principal 
selling functions in both markets are carried out by a single employee 
in the Mexico office who devotes a disproportionate amount of time (as 
compared to the relative value of CEP sales to all sales) to these CEP 
principal selling functions. Id.; see also Exhibit A-1. Based on this 
information, we preliminarily determine that the CEP LOT (that is, 
sales from Amtex to its U.S. affiliate) involves a much more intense 
level of activity than the NV LOT. See Analysis Memorandum at 6-7.
    Because we found the home market and U.S. CEP sales were made at 
different LOTs, as Amtex claimed, we examined whether a LOT adjustment 
or a CEP offset may be appropriate in this review. As we found only one 
LOT in the home market, it was not possible to make a LOT adjustment to 
home market sales prices, because such an adjustment is dependent on 
our ability to identify a pattern of consistent price differences 
between the home market sales on which NV is based and home market 
sales at the CEP LOT. See 19 CFR 351.412(d)(1)(ii). Furthermore, 
because the CEP LOT involves a much more intense level of activity than 
the NV LOT, it is not possible to make a CEP offset to NV in accordance 
with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act.

Currency Conversions

    Amtex reported certain home market and U.S. sales prices and 
adjustments in both U.S. dollars and Mexican pesos. Therefore, we made 
peso-U.S. dollar currency conversions, where appropriate, based on the 
exchange rates

[[Page 45941]]

in effect on the date of the sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve 
Board, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Tariff Act.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily find the following 
weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2006 
through June 30, 2007:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Weighted-
                   Producer/Exporter                      Average Margin
                                                           (Percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quimica Amtex, S.A. de C.V.............................           1.44
All Others.............................................          12.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty 
days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first 
business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no 
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary 
results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, 
limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 
35 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d)(1). Parties who submit arguments in these proceedings are 
requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issue; 2) 
a brief summary of the argument; and 3) a table of authorities. 
Further, parties submitting written comments must provide the 
Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such 
comments on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the 
issues in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of 
publication of these preliminary results.
    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this 
administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department 
will calculate an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. Amtex has 
reported entered values for all of its sales of subject merchandise to 
the United States during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific duty assessment 
rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
the examined sales of that importer. These rates will be assessed 
uniformly on all entries the respective importers made during the POR 
if these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of 
review. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct 
CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that 
importer. In accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends to 
issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to CBP on or after 
41 days following the publication of the final results of review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
POR produced by the company included in these preliminary results that 
the company did not know were destined for the United States. In such 
instances we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the 
``all others'' rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company or 
companies involved in the transaction.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be 
effective for all shipments of CMC from Mexico entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for Amtex will be 
the rate established in the final results of review, unless that rate 
is less than 0.50 percent (de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(1)), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; 2) if 
the exporter is not a firm covered in this 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 merchandise; and 3) if neither the exporter 
nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review 
conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the all-
others rate of 12.61 percent from the LTFV investigation. See Notice of 
Antidumping Duty Orders: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 
Mexico, the Netherlands and Sweden, 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005).
    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 this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

    Dated: July 30, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-18217 Filed 8-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
```