Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 45695 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of 

July 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import 

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board. 

ATTEST: 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–18120 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1568] 

Grant of Authority for Subzone Status, 

Baker Hughes, Inc., (Barite Milling), 

Morgan City, LA 

Pursuant to its authority under the ForeignTrade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the ForeignTrade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the 

following Order: 

Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act 

provides for ‘‘* * * the establishment 

* * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of 

entry of the United States, to expedite 

and encourage foreign commerce, and 

for other purposes,’’ and authorizes the 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant 

qualified corporations the privilege of 

establishing foreign-trade zones in or 

adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection ports of entry; 

Whereas, the Board’s regulations (15 

CFR Part 400) provide for the 

establishment of special-purpose 

subzones when existing zone facilities 

cannot serve the specific use involved, 

and when the activity results in 

significant public benefit and is in the 

public interest; 

Whereas, the Port of South Louisiana 

Commission, grantee of Foreign-Trade 

Zone 124, has made application to the 

Board for authority to establish a 

special-purpose subzone at the barite 

milling facility of Baker Hughes, Inc., 

located in Morgan City, Louisiana (FTZ 

Docket 2–2008, filed 1/28/08); 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment was given in the Federal 

Register (73 FR 5175, 1/28/08); and, 

Whereas, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendations of the 

examiner’s report, and finds the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and the 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that approval of the application would 

be in the public interest; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

grants authority for subzone status for 

activity related to barite milling at the 

facility of Baker Hughes, Inc., located in 

Morgan City, Louisiana (Subzone 

124M), as described in the application 

and Federal Register notice, and subject 

to the FTZ Act and the Board’s 

regulations, including Section 400.28. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of 

July 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import 

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board. 

ATTEST: 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–18121 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Materials Technical Advisory 

Committee; Notice of Partially Closed 

Meeting 

The Materials Technical Advisory 

Committee will meet on August 14, 

2008, 10 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover 

Building, Room 3884, 14th Street 

between Constitution & Pennsylvania 

Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The 

Committee advises the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration with respect to technical 

questions that affect the level of export 

controls applicable to materials and 

related technology. 

Agenda 

Public Session 

1. Welcome and Introductions. 

2. Remarks from the Bureau of Industry 

and Security Management. 

3. Report of Composite Working Group 

and Chemical Equipment Subgroup. 

4. Report on July 8 regulation: 

Implementation of Understandings 

of the Australia Group Plenary and 

Additions to Lists of CWC State 

Parties. 

5. Public comments from teleconference 

and physical attendees. 

6. Any other business. 

Closed Session 

7. Discussion of matters determined to 

be exempt from the provisions 

relating to public meetings found in 

5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). 

The open session will be accessible 

via teleconference to 20 participants on 

a first come, first serve basis. To join the 

conference, submit inquiries to Ms. 

Yvette Springer at 

Yspringer@bis.doc.gov no later than 

August 7, 2008. 

A limited number of seats will be 

available during the public session of 

the meeting. Reservations are not 

accepted. To the extent time permits, 

members of the public may present oral 

statements to the Committee. Written 

statements may be submitted at any 

time before or after the meeting. 

However, to facilitate distribution of 

public presentation materials to 

Committee members, the materials 

should be forwarded prior to the 

meeting to Ms. Springer via e-mail. 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Administration, with the concurrence of 

the delegate of the General Counsel, 

formally determined on July 17, 2008, 

pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 

that the portion of the meeting dealing 

with matters the premature disclosure of 

which would likely frustrate the 

implementation of a proposed agency 

action as described in 5 U.S.C. 

552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the 

provisions relating to public meetings 

found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 

10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the 

meeting will be open to the public. 

For more information, call Yvette 

Springer at (202) 482–2813. 

Dated: August 1, 2008. 

Yvette Springer, 

Committee Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. E8–18077 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–549–813] 

Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a timely 

request, the Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on canned 

pineapple fruit (CPF) from Thailand for 

the period of review (POR) July 1, 2006 

through June 30, 2007. The review 

covers one respondent, Vita Food 

Factory (1989) Ltd. (Vita). 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that Vita made sales to the 

United States at less than normal value 

(NV). If these preliminary results are 

adopted in the final results of this 

administrative review, we will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to assess antidumping duties on 

entries of Vita’s merchandise during the 

POR. The preliminary results are listed 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

45696 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 

1Section A of the questionnaire requests general 

information concerning a company’s corporate 

structure and business practices, the merchandise 

under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 

which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. 

Section B requests a complete listing of all home 

market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, 

of sales in the most appropriate third-country 

market (this section is not applicable to respondents 

in non-market economy cases). Section C requests 

a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests 

information on the cost of production of the foreign 

like product and the constructed value of the 

merchandise under investigation. Section E 

requests information on further manufacturing. 

below in the section titled ‘‘Preliminary 

Results of Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Myrna Lobo or Douglas Kirby, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2371 or (202) 482–

3782, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department published the 

antidumping duty order on CPF from 

Thailand on July 18, 1995. See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Order and Amended 

Final Determination: Canned Pineapple 

Fruit from Thailand, 60 FR 36775 (July 

18, 1995) (Antidumping Duty Order). On 

July 3, 2007, the Department published 

in the Federal Register a notice of 

‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative 

Review’’ of the antidumping duty order 

on CPF from Thailand. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 36420 

(July 3, 2007). On April 21, 2008, the 

Department published a revocation of 

this order effective October 31, 2007. 

See Canned Pineapple Fruit from 

Thailand: Notice of Final Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order and 

Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order, 

73 FR 21311 (April 21, 2008). 

The Department received a request for 

review from Vita, by the July 31, 2007 

deadline and therefore, on August 20, 

2007, the Department published in the 

Federal Register the notice of initiation 

of the administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on CPF from 

Thailand for Vita. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 48613 

(August 20, 2007). 

On September 13, 2007, the 

Department issued sections A through E 

of the questionnaire to Vita.1 Vita 

submitted its sections A through D 

responses on October 22, 2007. The 

Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire on January 8, 2008, and 

Vita responded on January 18, 2008. 

On March 30, 2008, the Department, 

in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), 

extended the deadline for the 

preliminary results of this antidumping 

duty administrative review by 120 days 

from April 1, 2008 until no later than 

July 30, 2008. See Canned Pineapple 

Fruit from Thailand: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 12704 (March 10, 2008). 

Period of Review 

This review covers the period July 1, 

2006 through June 30, 2007. 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by this order is 

CPF, defined as pineapple processed 

and/or prepared into various product 

forms, including rings, pieces, chunks, 

tidbits, and crushed pineapple, that is 

packed and cooked in metal cans with 

either pineapple juice or sugar syrup 

added. CPF is currently classifiable 

under subheadings 2008.20.0010 and 

2008.20.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

HTSUS 2008.20.0010 covers CPF 

packed in a sugar–based syrup; HTSUS 

2008.20.0090 covers CPF packed 

without added sugar (i.e., juice–packed). 

Although these HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and for 

customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope is dispositive. 

There have been no scope rulings for the 

subject order. 

Less than Fair Value Analysis 

To determine whether sales of subject 

merchandise to the United States were 

made at less than NV, we compared the 

export price (EP) to NV, as described in 

the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’

sections of this notice in accordance 

with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16)(A) 

of the Act, we considered all products 

produced by respondents that are 

covered by the description in the 

‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section, above, 

and that were sold in the comparison 

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 

comparison market to compare to U.S. 

sales, we compared U.S. sales to the 

most similar foreign like product on the 

basis of the characteristics listed in 

Appendix V of the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaires. 

Date of Sale 

It is the Department’s practice to use 

invoice date as the date of sale. 

However, 19 CFR 351.401(i) states that 

the Secretary may use a date other than 

the invoice date if the Secretary is 

satisfied that the material terms of the 

sale were established on some other 

date. See Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. 

v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 2d 207, 

217–219 (CIT 2000). Vita reported 

invoice date as the date of sale for all 

sales in both the comparison and U.S. 

markets. After analyzing Vita’s 

responses and the sample sales 

documents provided, we preliminarily 

determine that invoice date is the 

appropriate date of sale for all sales 

under review. 

U.S. Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we use EP when the subject 

merchandise was first sold (or agreed to 

be sold) before the date of importation 

by the producer or exporter of the 

subject merchandise outside of the 

United States to an unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States or to an 

unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 

the United States, and constructed 

export price (CEP) was not otherwise 

warranted by the facts on the record. As 

discussed below, we conclude that all of 

Vita’s U.S. sales are EP sales. 

Vita identified all of its U.S. sales as 

EP sales in its questionnaire responses. 

The Department based the price of each 

of Vita’s U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise on EP, as defined in 

section 772(a) of the Act, because the 

merchandise was sold prior to 

importation, to unaffiliated purchasers 

in the United States, or to unaffiliated 

purchasers for exportation to the United 

States and the use of CEP was not 

otherwise warranted based on the facts 

on the record. In accordance with 

section 772 (a) and (c) of the Act, we 

calculated EP using the prices Vita 

charged for packed subject merchandise 

shipped FOB. We made deductions for 

movement expenses, including, where 

applicable, charges for transportation, 

terminal handling, container stuffing, 

bill of lading preparation, customs 

clearance, and legal and port fees 

documentation. See Analysis 

Memorandum for Vita Food Factory 

(1989) Co., Ltd., (Vita Preliminary 

Analysis Memorandum) dated 

concurrently with this notice. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 45697 

2Section 773(b)(2)(ii)(B-C) of the Act defines 

extended period of time as a period that is normally 

1 year, but not less than 6 months, and substantial 

quantities as sales made at prices below the cost of 

production that have been made in substantial 

quantities if (i) the volume of such sales represents 

20 percent or more of the volume of sales under 

consideration for the determination of normal 

value, or (ii) the weighted average per unit price of 

the sales under consideration for the determination 

of normal value is less than the weighted average 

per unit cost of production for such sales. 

Normal Value 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have based 

NV on the price at which the foreign 

like product was first sold for 

consumption in the comparison market, 

in the usual commercial quantities, in 

the ordinary course of trade, and, to the 

extent practicable, at the same level of 

trade (LOT) as the EP sale. See ‘‘Level 

of Trade’’ section below. After testing 

comparison market viability and 

whether comparison market sales were 

at below–cost prices, we calculated NV 

for Vita as discussed in the following 

sections. 

Home Market Viability 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, 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 normally should be 

greater than or equal to five percent of 

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

compared the aggregate volume of home 

market sales of the foreign like product 

to the aggregate volume of its U.S. sales 

of subject merchandise. See also 19 CFR 

351.404(b). 

Because the aggregate volume of 

Vita’s home market sales of foreign like 

product is less than five percent of the 

aggregate volume of its U.S. sales of 

subject merchandise, we based NV on 

sales of the foreign like product in a 

country other than Vita’s home market. 

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

Specifically, we based NV for Vita on 

sales of the foreign like product in 

Germany due to the fact that Vita 

exported the largest amount of CPF (by 

quantity) to Germany during the POR, 

and did not sell merchandise more 

similar to that sold to the U.S. to any 

other third country market. 

Cost of Production (COP) Analysis 

In the most recently completed 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on CPF from 

Thailand, the Department determined 

that Vita sold foreign–like product in its 

comparison market at prices below the 

cost of producing the product and 

excluded such sales from the 

calculation of NV. See Canned 

Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

44490 (August 8, 2007) (11th Review 

Preliminary Results) unchanged in 

Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 5792 

(January 31, 2008) (11th Review Final 

Results). Therefore, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the 

Department determined that there are 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that during the current POR, Vita sold 

the foreign like product at prices below 

the cost of producing the product and 

instituted a below cost inquiry as to 

Vita’s sales in the comparison market. 

Test of Comparison Market Sales Price 

We compared sales of the foreign like 

product in the home market with 

model–specific COP values in the POR. 

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

the Act, we calculated COP based on the 

sum of the costs of materials and 

fabrication employed in producing the 

foreign like product, plus selling, 

general and administrative (SG&A) 

expenses, and financial expenses and 

packing. In our sales–below-cost 

analysis, we used comparison market 

sales and COP information provided by 

Vita in its questionnaire responses. See 

Vita’s October 22, 2007 section D 

questionnaire response. 

Results of COP Test 

We compared the weighted–average 

COPs to comparison market sales of the 

foreign like–product, consistent with 

section 773(b) of the Act, in order to 

determine whether these sales had been 

made at prices below the COP. See also 

19 CFR 351.404(b). In determining 

whether to disregard comparison market 

sales made at prices below the COP, we 

examined whether such sales were 

made (1) within an extended period of 

time in substantial quantities, and (2) at 

prices which permitted the recovery of 

all costs within a reasonable period of 

time in the normal course of trade, in 

accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) 

and (B) of the Act. On a product–

specific basis, we compared the COP to 

comparison market prices, less any 

movement charges, discounts and 

rebates, and direct and indirect selling 

expenses. See Treatment of Adjustments 

and Selling Expenses in Calculating the 

Cost of Production (‘‘COP’’) and 

Constructed Value (‘‘CV’’) Import Policy 

Bulletin (March 25, 1994) on file in the 

CRU, which can also be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov. 

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

Act, where fewer than 20 percent of a 

respondent’s sales of a given model 

were at prices less than the COP, we did 

not disregard any below–cost sales of 

that model because the below–cost sales 

were not made in substantial quantities 

within an extended period of time.2

Where 20 percent or more of a 

respondent’s sales of a given model 

were at prices less than the COP, we 

disregarded the below–cost sales when: 

(1) they were made in substantial 

quantities within an extended period of 

time, in accordance with sections 

773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and; (2) 

based on our comparison of prices to 

average COPs in the POR, we 

determined that the below–cost prices 

would not permit the recovery of costs 

within a reasonable period of time, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 

the Act. 

Price–to-Price Comparisons 

For those product comparisons for 

which there were comparison market 

sales of like product in the ordinary 

course of trade, we based NV on 

comparison market prices to affiliated 

(when made at prices determined to be 

arms–length) or unaffiliated parties, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(A) 

and (B) of the Act. We made 

adjustments for differences in cost 

attributable to differences in physical 

characteristics of the merchandise, 

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

the Act and 19 CRF 351.411 as well as 

for differences in direct selling 

expenses, in accordance with 

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

351.410. We relied on our model match 

criteria in order to match U.S. sales of 

subject merchandise to comparison 

sales of the foreign like product based 

on the reported physical characteristics 

of the subject merchandise. Where there 

were no sales of identical merchandise 

in the comparison market to compare to 

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

the next most similar foreign like 

product on the basis of the 

characteristics and reporting 

instructions listed in the Department’s 

questionnaire. See section 771(16) of the 

Act. 

When comparing Vita comparison 

market sales to its EP sales, the 

Department calculated Vita’s NV 

(shipped FOB) based on its gross unit 

price to customers in Germany. 

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of 

the Act, we made deductions for 

movement expenses (i.e., inland freight, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

45698 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 

3The marketing process in the United States and 

in the comparison markets begins with the producer 

and extends to the sale to the final user or 

consumer. The chain of distribution between the 

two may have many or few links, and the 

respondents’ sales occur somewhere along this 

chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered 

the narrative responses of the respondent to 

properly determine where in the chain of 

distribution the sale occurs. 

4Selling functions associated with a particular 

chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) 

of trade in a particular market. For purposes of 

these preliminary results, we have organized the 

common selling functions into four major 

categories: sales process and marketing support, 

technical service, freight and delivery, and 

inventory maintenance. 

ocean freight and warehousing), when 

appropriate. In accordance with sections 

773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we 

deducted comparison market packing 

costs and added U.S. packing costs. In 

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

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), we 

deducted comparison market direct 

selling expenses (i.e., credit, warranty) 

and added U.S. direct selling expenses. 

We made the appropriate adjustment for 

commissions paid in the home market 

pursuant to 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.410(c). We made 

adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses 

incurred on comparison market or U.S. 

sales where commissions were granted 

on sales in one market but not in the 

other, the ‘‘commission offset.’’

Specifically, where commissions are 

incurred in one market, but not in the 

other, we will limit the amount of such 

allowance to the amount of either the 

selling expenses incurred in the one 

market or the commissions allowed in 

the other market, whichever is less. We 

made the appropriate adjustment for 

commissions paid in the home market 

pursuant to 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.410(c). 

Vita reported that it paid its customer 

in the U.S. market a commission on 

sales to the United States during the 

POR. Based on the information on the 

record, specifically that the 

commissions were paid to the U.S. 

customer rather than to an agent asking 

on behalf of Vita, we have determined 

these payments to be reductions in 

price, and therefore, more appropriately 

considered them as discounts. 

Accordingly, we have treated them as 

discounts in our calculations. See Vita 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. 

Price to Constructed Value 

Comparisons 

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) 

of the Act, we used constructed value 

(CV) as the basis for NV when we could 

not determine NV because there were no 

above–cost contemporaneous sales of 

identical or similar merchandise in the 

comparison market. We calculated CV 

in accordance with section 773(e) of the 

Act, including the cost of materials and 

fabrication, SG&A expenses, and profit. 

In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) 

of the Act, we based SG&A expenses 

and profit on the amounts incurred and 

realized by the respondent in 

connection with the production and sale 

of the foreign like product in the 

ordinary course of trade for 

consumption in the comparison market. 

Where NV is based on CV, we determine 

the NV LOT based on the LOT of the 

sales from which we derive selling 

expenses, SG&A expenses, and profit for 

CV, where possible. 

We used CV as the basis for NV for 

sales for which there were no usable 

contemporaneous sales of the foreign 

like product in the comparison market, 

in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of 

the Act. We calculated CV in 

accordance with section 773(e) of the 

Act. We added reported materials, labor, 

and factory overhead costs to derive the 

cost of manufacture (COM), in 

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

Act. We then added interest expenses, 

SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. 

packing expenses to derive the CV (and 

added U.S. credit expenses for 

comparison to EP), in accordance with 

sections 773(e)(2) and (3) of the Act. We 

calculated profit based on the total 

value of sales and total COP reported by 

Vita in its questionnaire response, in 

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of 

the Act. Finally, we deducted 

comparison market credit expenses from 

CV and added U.S. credit to calculate 

the foreign unit price in dollars 

(FUPDOL), pursuant to section 

773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. 

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 LOT as the EP or CEP 

sale. 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, 

62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 

1997) (South African Plate Final). In 

order to determine whether the 

comparison sales were at different 

stages in the marketing process than the 

U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution 

system in each market (i.e., the chain of 

distribution),3 including selling 

functions,4 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 prices), we consider the 

starting prices before any adjustments. 

With respect to CEP sales, the 

Department removes the selling 

activities set forth in section 772(d) of 

the Act from the CEP starting price prior 

to performing its LOT analysis. See 

Micron Technology, Inc. v. United 

States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 

2001). As such, for CEP sales, the U.S. 

LOT is based on the starting price of the 

sales, as adjusted under section 772(d) 

of the Act. 

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 sale, 

the Department may compare the U.S. 

sale to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market. Vita reported that 

the selling activities for its respective 

comparison market and U.S. market 

channels were made at the same level of 

trade. After conducting an analysis of 

Vita’s sales channels and selling 

activities, the Department preliminarily 

determines that no level of trade 

adjustment is necessary for Vita, 

consistent with what Vita reported in its 

respective questionnaire responses. For 

further details on the Department’s LOT 

analysis, see Vita Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. 

Currency Conversion 

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 also 19 CFR 351.415. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of this review, we 

preliminarily find that the following 

weighted–average dumping margins 

exist: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin 

Vita Food Factory (1989) Ltd. .... 2.48 % 

Cash Deposits 

Pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the 

Department revoked this order and 

notified U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to discontinue 

suspension of liquidation and collection 

of cash deposits on entries of the subject 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 45699 

merchandise entered or withdrawn from 

warehouse on or after October 31, 2007, 

the effective date of revocation of this 

AD order. See Canned Pineapple Fruit 

from Thailand: Notice of Final Results 

of Changed Circumstances Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order and 

Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order, 

73 FR 21311 (April 21, 2008). Therefore, 

cash deposits of estimated antidumping 

duties are no longer required. 

Duty Assessment 

Upon publication of the final results 

of this review, the Department shall 

determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), the Department calculates 

an assessment rate for each importer of 

the subject merchandise for each 

respondent. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer–specific assessment rates on 

the basis of the ratio of the total amount 

of antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales and the total entered 

value of the examined sales. These rates 

will be assessed uniformly on all entries 

of the respective importers made during 

the POR if these preliminary results are 

adopted in the final results of review. 

The Department intends to issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

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) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by companies 

included in the final results of review 

for which the reviewed companies did 

not know that the merchandise it sold 

to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 

trading company, or exporter) was 

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 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

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 public announcement of 

this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, 

interested parties may submit written 

comments in response to these 

preliminary results. Unless extended by 

the Department, case briefs are to be 

submitted within 30 days after the date 

of publication of this notice. Rebuttal 

briefs, limited to arguments raised in 

case briefs, may be submitted no later 

than five days after the time limit for 

filing case briefs. Parties who submit 

arguments in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

1) a statement of the issues; 2) a brief 

summary of the argument; and 3) a table 

of authorities. See 19 CFR 309(c)(2). 

Case and rebuttal briefs must be served 

on interested parties in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.303(f). 

Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

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 within 30 days of the 

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 raised. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the respective case briefs. Unless the 

Secretary specifies otherwise, the 

hearing, if requested, will be held two 

days after the date for submission of 

rebuttal briefs. Parties will be notified of 

the time and location. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review 

within 120 days after the publication of 

this notice, unless extended. See section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act; 19 CFR 

351.213(h). 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also 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. 

Dated: July 29, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–18027 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–824] 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet 

and Strip from India: Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to timely requests 

for review by respondents, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on 

polyethylene terephtalate film, sheet 

and strip (PET Film) from India for the 

period of review (POR) July 1, 2006 

through June 30, 2007. The review 

covers one respondent, Jindal Poly Film, 

Ltd. (Jindal). 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that Jindal did not make 

sales at less than normal value (NV) 

during the POR. 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 liquidate entries 

during the POR without regard to 

antidumping duties. The preliminary 

results are listed below in the section 

titled ‘‘Preliminary Results of Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Martha Douthit, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–5050. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 1, 2002, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on PET Film 

from India. See Notice of Amended 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

from India, 67 FR 44175 (July 1, 20002). 

On July 3, 2007, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review.’’ See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 36420 

(July 3, 2007). On July 30, 2007, the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES