45948 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine the weightedaverage dumping margin for the 

manufacturer/exporter listed below for 

the period July 1, 2006, through June 30, 

2007, to be as follows: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin 

(percent) 

CP Kelco B.V. (formerly known 

as Noviant B.V.) .................... 7.02 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed in connection 

with these preliminary results of review 

within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested 

parties may submit case briefs and/or 

written comments no later than 30 days 

after the date of publication of these 

preliminary results of review. See 19 

CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and 

rebuttals to written comments, limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs and 

comments, may be filed no later than 

five days after the time limit for filing 

case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 

Parties who submit argument 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. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). Executive 

summaries should be limited to five 

pages total, including footnotes. Further, 

we request that parties submitting briefs 

and rebuttal briefs provide the 

Department with a copy of the public 

version of such briefs on diskette. An 

interested party may request a hearing 

within 30 days after the publication of 

the preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 

will be held two days after the 

scheduled date for submission of 

rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this review, including the 

results of our analysis of the issues 

raised in any such written comments or 

at a hearing, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion 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 covered by the 

review. The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the date of 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 CP Kelco and for which CP 

Kelco did not know another company 

would export its merchandise to 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(ies) 

involved in the transaction. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of the final results of this 

administrative review, as provided by 

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 

deposit rate for the reviewed company 

will be the rate listed in the final results 

of review; (2) for previously investigated 

companies not listed above, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is 

not a firm covered in this review or the 

original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 

investigation, but the manufacturer is, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit 

rate for all other manufacturers or 

exporters will continue to be the allothers rate of 14.57 percent, which is 

the all-others rate established in the 

LTFV investigation. See CMC Order. 

These deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

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. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: July 30, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–18218 Filed 8–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–405–803] 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From 

Finland; Notice of Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

Aqualon Company, a division of 

Hercules Inc. (the petitioner) and 

respondents CP Kelco OY and CP Kelco 

U.S., Inc. (collectively, CP Kelco), the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on purified 

carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from 

Finland. The review covers exports of 

the subject merchandise to the United 

States produced by CP Kelco. The 

period of review (POR) is July 1, 2006, 

through June 30, 2007. 

We preliminarily find that CP Kelco 

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. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 7, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tyler Weinhold 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) 482–1121 or (202) 482–

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department published the 

antidumping duty order on CMC from 

Finland on July 11, 2005. See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Orders: Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 45949 

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 

Finland for the period 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 25, 2007, the petitioner 

requested a review of CP Kelco for the 

period July 1, 2006, through June 30, 

2007. On July 27, 2007, CP Kelco 

requested an administrative review for 

the same period. 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 Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 72 FR 48613 (August 24, 2007). 

On August 27, 2007, the Department 

issued its standard antidumping 

questionnaire (antidumping 

questionnaire) to CP Kelco. CP Kelco 

submitted its response to section A of 

the Department’s antidumping 

questionnaire on October 5, 2007 (CP 

Kelco’s Section A Response). CP Kelco 

submitted its response to sections B and 

C of the antidumping questionnaire on 

October 22, 2007 (CP Kelco’s Sections B 

and C Response). 

On November 15, 2007, the 

Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to CP Kelco regarding its 

responses to sections A, B, and C of the 

antidumping questionnaire. CP Kelco 

submitted its response to the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaire on December 11, 2007 (CP 

Kelco’s December 11, 2007, Response). 

On January 18, 2008, the Department 

issued a second supplemental regarding 

CP Kelco’s response to sections A, B, 

and C. CP Kelco submitted its response 

to the Department’s supplemental 

questionnaire on February 12, 2008 (CP 

Kelco’s February 12, 2008, Response). 

On November 7, 2007, petitioner 

alleged that, during the POR, CP Kelco 

made sales of the foreign like product at 

prices below the cost of production 

(COP) in the home market. On January 

18, 2008, the Department initiated an 

investigation to determine whether CP 

Kelco’s sales of CMC were made at 

prices below CP Kelco’s cost of 

production. See Memorandum from Ji 

Young Oh, of the Office of Accounting 

and Tyler Weinhold, case analyst, to 

Richard O. Weible, Director, Office 7, 

AD/CVD Enforcement, regarding 

Petitioner’s Allegation of Sales Below 

the Cost of Production for CP Kelco Oy, 

dated January 18, 2008 (Cost Initiation 

Memo). The preliminary results of this 

investigation are discussed in the 

‘‘Normal Value’’ section of this notice, 

below. On January 18, 2008, the 

Department sent a letter to CP Kelco 

requesting that the company respond to 

section D of the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaire. CP Kelco 

submitted its response on February 4, 

2008 (CP Kelco’s Section D Response). 

On March 3, 2008, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

CP Kelco regarding its Section D 

response. CP Kelco submitted its 

response to the Department’s 

supplemental questionnaire on March 

25, 2008 (CP Kelco’s March 25, 2008, 

Response). On March 31, 2008, the 

Department issued a second section D 

supplemental questionnaire to CP 

Kelco. CP Kelco submitted its response 

to the Department’s supplemental 

questionnaire on April 11, 2008 (CP 

Kelco’s April 11, 2008, Response). On 

May 13, 2008, the Department issued a 

third section D supplemental 

questionnaire to CP Kelco. CP Kelco 

submitted its response to the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaire on May 27, 2008 (CP 

Kelco’s May 27, 2008, Response). 

Because it was not practicable to 

complete this review within the normal 

time frame, on March 11, 2008, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of the extension for the 

preliminary results of this review. See 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

Finland, Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

12950 (March 11, 2008). This extension 

established the deadline for these 

preliminary results as July 30, 2008. 

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 offwhite, 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. 

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 CP Kelco 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. We 

used the invoice date, as recorded in CP 

Kelco’s normal books and records as the 

date of sale for CP Kelco’s EP, CEP, and 

home market sales. For a more detailed 

discussion of these calculations, see 

Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to 

the File, ‘‘Analysis of Data Submitted by 

CP Kelco U.S. Inc. and CP Kelco OY, 

(collectively, CP Kelco) in the 

Preliminary Results of the 2006–2007 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from 

Finland (A–405–803),’’ (Preliminary 

Analysis Memorandum). 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Tariff Act, we considered all 

products produced by CP Kelco 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 

comparisons to U.S. sales. We relied on 

five characteristics to match U.S. sales 

of subject merchandise to home market 

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. See the antidumping 

questionnaire at Appendix 5. 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 

antidumping questionnaire. Because 

there were sales of identical or similar 

merchandise in the home market 

suitable for comparison to each U.S. 

sale, we did not compare any U.S. sales 

to constructed value (CV). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
45950 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

1See EP section, above. 

Export Price 

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).’’ In accordance with 

section 772(a) of the Tariff Act, we used 

EP for a number of CP Kelco’s U.S. 

sales. We have preliminarily found that 

these sales are properly classified as EP 

sales because these sales were made 

before the date of importation and were 

sales directly to unaffiliated U.S. 

customers. 

We based EP on the packed, delivered 

duty paid or free-on-board (FOB)- 

warehouse prices to unaffiliated 

customers in the United States. We 

made adjustments for price or billing 

adjustments and discounts, where 

applicable. We also made deductions for 

movement expenses in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, 

which included, where appropriate, 

foreign inland freight, international 

freight, marine insurance, and U.S. 

brokerage and handling. We also 

reduced movement expenses, where 

appropriate, by the amount of certain 

freight revenue (i.e., revenue received 

from customers for invoice items 

covering transportation expenses) paid 

by the customer. Additionally, we made 

adjustments for direct selling expenses 

(credit expenses) in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act. 

CP Kelco incurred certain expenses as 

a result of factoring certain sales (i.e., 

selling the accounts receivable 

associated with those sales to an 

affiliated financial institution in 

exchange for an immediate payment). 

For factored sales, we made an 

adjustment to gross unit price based 

upon the difference between the face 

value of the accounts receivables 

factored and the immediate payment 

received upon the factoring of those 

receivables (factoring charges). 

Constructed Export Price 

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 CP Kelco’s U.S. sales 

because CP Kelco sold merchandise to 

affiliate CP Kelco U.S., Inc. in the 

United States which, in turn, sold 

subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. 

customers. We have preliminarily found 

that these U.S. sales are properly 

classified as CEP sales because they 

occurred in the United States and were 

made through CP Kelco’s U.S. affiliate, 

CP Kelco U.S., Inc., 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. We made adjustments for 

price or billing adjustments, early 

payment discounts, and factoring 

charges,1 where applicable. We also 

made deductions for movement 

expenses in accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, which 

included, where appropriate, foreign 

inland freight, foreign brokerage and 

handling, international freight, marine 

insurance, customs duties, U.S. 

brokerage, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. 

warehousing expenses. We also reduced 

movement expenses, where appropriate, 

by the amount of freight revenue paid 

by the customer. 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 

(imputed credit expenses), inventory 

carrying costs, and indirect selling 

expenses. We also made an adjustment 

for profit in accordance with section 

772(d)(3) of the Tariff Act. 

Further-Manufactured U.S. Sales 

CP Kelco made certain sales of subject 

merchandise to Huber Engineered 

Materials (HEM), an affiliated company 

in the United States. See CP Kelco’s 

Sections B and C Response at pages C–

33 and C–34, and CP Kelco’s December 

11, 2007, Response at pages 12 and 13. 

The total quantity of this material 

represented less than 10 percent of CP 

Kelco’s total U.S. sales. See Section A of 

CP Kelco’s December 11, 2007, 

Response at pages 12 and 13 and at 

Exhibit A–32 and CP Kelco’s February 

12, 2008 Response at pages 4 to 6 and 

Exhibits A–33 and A–34. This material 

was then further manufactured by HEM 

into non-subject merchandise, which 

was then sold to unaffiliated U.S. 

customers. See section A of CP Kelco’s 

December 11, 2007 Response at pages 12 

and 13 and CP Kelco’s February 12, 

2008, Response at pages 4 to 6 and 

Exhibits A–33 and A–34. 

Section 772(e) of the Tariff Act 

provides that when the value added in 

the United States by an affiliated party 

is likely to exceed substantially the 

value of the subject merchandise, the 

Department shall use one of the 

following prices to determine CEP if 

there is a sufficient quantity of sales to 

provide a reasonable basis of 

comparison and the use of such sales is 

appropriate: (1) The price of identical 

subject merchandise sold by the 

exporter or producer to an unaffiliated 

person; or (2) the price of other subject 

merchandise sold by the exporter or 

producer to an unaffiliated person. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.402(c)(2), we conducted an analysis 

to determine whether the value added 

by HEM to the subject merchandise after 

importation in the United States was at 

least 65 percent of the price charged to 

the first unaffiliated purchaser for the 

merchandise as sold in the United 

States. See 19 CFR 351.402(c)(2). Our 

analysis showed that the value added by 

HEM was significantly greater than 65 

percent. Therefore, we determine that 

the value added in the United States by 

HEM exceeds substantially the value of 

the subject merchandise. Id. See also 

section A of CP Kelco’s December 11, 

2007, Response at pages 12 and 13 and 

Exhibit C–32, and CP Kelco’s February, 

12, 2008, Response at pages 4 to 6 and 

Exhibits A–33 and A–34. 

We then considered whether there 

were sales of identical subject 

merchandise or other subject 

merchandise sold in sufficient 

quantities by the exporter or producer to 

an unaffiliated person that could 

provide a reasonable basis of 

comparison. In addition to the sales of 

subject merchandise to HEM which was 

further manufactured, CP Kelco also 

made CEP sales of identical subject 

merchandise to unaffiliated customers 

in the United States through CP Kelco 

U.S., Inc. 

Decisions as to the appropriate 

methodology for determining CEP for 

sales involving further manufacturing 

generally must be made on a case-bycase basis. See, e.g., Certain CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

from the Republic of Korea: Notice of 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 51584, 

51586 (September 10, 2007) (unchanged 

in final results, 73 FR 14220 (March 17, 

2008)). In the instant review, we find 

the quantity of sales of identical 

merchandise to unaffiliated customers is 

sufficiently large to serve as a 

reasonable basis for the calculation of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 45951 

2See EP section, above. 

CEP. The value added to the CMC after 

importation is very large and the further 

manufacturing very complex. Therefore, 

similar to our practice in other cases 

(see, e.g., Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from the 

Netherlands; Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 28676 (May 22, 2007); 

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from the Republic of 

Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results 

and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

51584, (September 10, 2007) 

(unchanged for final results, 73 FR 

14220 (March 17, 2008)), we have 

applied the preliminary weightedaverage margin reflecting the rate 

calculated for sales of identical or other 

subject merchandise sold to unaffiliated 

customers in the United States. 

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. As CP 

Kelco’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 

have based NV on home market sales in 

the usual commercial quantities and in 

the ordinary course of trade. 

B. Cost of Production Analysis 

As explained above in the 

Background section of this notice, on 

November 7, 2007, the petitioner alleged 

that CP Kelco made sales of the foreign 

like product at prices below the COP in 

the home market during the POR. The 

Department found there were reasonable 

grounds to believe or suspect that sales 

in the home market were made at prices 

below the COP. Therefore, pursuant to 

section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, we 

initiated a cost investigation on January 

18, 2008, to determine whether CP 

Kelco’s sales made during the POR were 

at prices below its COP. See Cost 

Initiation Memo. 

C. Calculation of Cost of Production 

(COP) 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Tariff Act, we calculated the 

weighted-average COP for each model 

based on the sum of CP Kelco’s 

materials and fabrication costs for the 

foreign like product, plus an amount for 

home market selling expenses, general 

and administrative (G&A) expenses, 

financial expenses, and packing costs. 

We relied on the COP data submitted by 

CP Kelco. At our request, CP Kelco 

submitted two G&A expense variables, 

‘‘GNA,’’ which is CP Kelco’s G&A 

expenses reported according to CP 

Kelco’s international financial reporting 

standards (IFRS) financial statements, 

and ‘‘ALTGNA,’’ which is CP Kelco’s 

G&A expenses reported according to CP 

Kelco’s Finnish accounting standards 

(FAS) financial statements. See CP 

Kelco’s Section A response at Exhibits 

20 and 21 and (CP Kelco Oy’s 2006 FAS 

and IFRS audited financial statements, 

respectively). Both sets of financial 

statements are audited. 

The differences between these two 

separate financial statements and the 

accounting methods used to prepare 

them do not affect any other expenses 

besides G&A expenses. The primary 

relevant difference between the two 

financial statements is that CP Kelco’s 

FAS financial statements include an 

amount for goodwill amortization 

expense, while CP Kelco’s IFRS 

financial statements do not include 

goodwill amortization expense. 

We find that CP Kelco’s FAS financial 

statements reflect CP Kelco’s normal 

books and records. In addition, CP 

Kelco’s FAS financial statements were 

also prepared using materially the same 

accounting standards as those used to 

prepare the financial statements 

referenced in the previous segment of 

this proceeding. See Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

70568 (December 12, 2007) and the 

accompanying Issues and Decisions 

Memorandum at Comment 1. Thus, CP 

Kelco’s ‘‘ALTGNA’’ represents the G&A 

expenses reported according to CP 

Kelco’s normal books and records. 

Therefore, in our analysis, we have used 

CP Kelco’s alternative G&A expense 

variable, ‘‘ALTGNA.’’ See the 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 

page 4. 

D. Test of Home Market Prices 

We compared the weighted-average 

COP of CP Kelco’s home market sales to 

home market sales prices of the foreign 

like product (net of billing adjustments, 

discounts, any applicable movement 

expenses, direct and indirect selling 

expenses, and packing), as required 

under section 773(b) of the Tariff Act in 

order to determine whether these sales 

had been made at prices below the COP. 

In determining whether to disregard 

home market sales made at prices below 

the COP, we examined, in accordance 

with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the 

Tariff Act, whether such sales were 

made in substantial quantities within an 

extended period of time, and whether 

such sales were made at prices which 

would permit recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time. 

E. Results of the Cost Test 

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

Tariff Act, where less than 20 percent of 

CP Kelco’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 these below-cost sales 

were not made in substantial quantities. 

Where 20 percent or more of CP Kelco’s 

home market sales of a given model 

were at prices less than the COP, we 

disregarded the below-cost sales 

because such sales were made: (1) 

within an extended period of time and 

in ‘‘substantial quantities’’ within the 

POR, in accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Tariff Act, 

and (2) 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 Tariff 

Act (i.e. , the sales were made at prices 

below the weighted-average per-unit 

COP for the POR). In this review, we 

have disregarded such sales from our 

margin calculation. We used the 

remaining sales as the basis for 

determining NV, if such sales existed, in 

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

Tariff Act. 

F. Price-to-Price Comparisons 

We calculated NV based on prices to 

unaffiliated customers. We made 

adjustments for billing adjustments, 

early payment discounts, rebates, and 

factoring charges,2 where appropriate. 

We made deductions, where 

appropriate, for foreign inland freight, 

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the 

Tariff Act. We also offset inland freight 

for any freight revenue. In addition, 

when comparing sales of similar 

merchandise, we made adjustments for 

differences in cost (i.e. , DIFMER), 

where those differences were 

attributable to differences in physical 

characteristics of the merchandise 

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

the Tariff Act and section 351.411 of the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
45952 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

Department’s regulations. 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 section 351.410 of 

the Department’s regulations. We made 

COS adjustments for imputed credit 

expenses. We also made an adjustment, 

where appropriate, for the CEP offset in 

accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of 

the Tariff Act. See ‘‘Level of Trade and 

CEP Offset’’ section below. 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. 

G. Constructed Value (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 such or similar merchandise 

for the U.S. sale. Section 773(e) of the 

Tariff 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, 

profit, and U.S. packing costs. We 

calculated the cost of materials and 

fabrication for CP Kelco based on the 

methodology described in the COP 

section of this notice. In accordance 

with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff 

Act, we based SG&A expenses and 

profit on the amounts incurred and 

realized by CP Kelco in connection with 

the production and sale of the foreign 

like product in the ordinary course of 

trade, for consumption in the foreign 

country. However, for these preliminary 

results, we did not base NV on CV in 

any instances. 

Level of Trade and CEP Offset 

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 trade of the constructed sale 

from the exporter to the importer. See 

section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. 

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 LOT is more remote 

from the factory than the CEP LOT 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., 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; see also 

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) 

(unchanged in final results of review, 70 

FR 58683 (October 7, 2005)). For CEP 

sales, we consider only the selling 

activities reflected in the U.S. price after 

the deduction of expenses incurred in 

the U.S. and CEP profit under section 

772(d) of the Tariff Act. See Micron 

Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 

F.3d 1301, 1314–1315 (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 the LOTs are different 

for different groups of sales, the 

functions and activities of the seller 

should be dissimilar. See Porcelain-onSteel 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. 

CP Kelco reported it had sold CMC to 

end users and distributors in the home 

market and to end users and distributors 

in the United States. CP Kelco identified 

two channels of distribution for sales in 

both the home market and the U.S. 

market: end users (channel 1) and 

distributors (channel 2). See CP Kelco’s 

Sections B and C Response at page B–

12. In the home market, CP Kelco claims 

its end user and distributor channels of 

distribution represent separate LOTs 

and that CP Kelco’s home market sales 

to end users were made at the same LOT 

as CP Kelco’s EP sales. Id. at B–18. 

However, because the Department found 

in the previous review that there was 

only one LOT in the home market, CP 

Kelco reported only one level of trade in 

its home market sales listing. See 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

Finland; Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 44106 

(August 7, 2007) (unchanged in the final 

results, 72 FR 70568 (December 12, 

2007)). 

As described above, CP Kelco made 

both direct (EP) sales of subject 

merchandise to U.S. customers and 

sales of subject merchandise through its 

affiliate, CP Kelco U.S., Inc. (CEP sales). 

CP Kelco reported that its EP sales to 

both end users and distributors were 

made at the same LOT as sales made to 

home market end users. See CP Kelco’s 

Sections B and C Response at page B–

18. However, CP Kelco reported that its 

CEP sales were made at a different LOT. 

We obtained information from CP 

Kelco regarding the marketing stages 

involved in making its reported home 

market and U.S. sales. CP Kelco 

provided a table listing all selling 

activities performed, and comparing the 

LOT among each channel of distribution 

for both markets. See CP Kelco’s Section 

A response at page A–29. We reviewed 

the intensity to which all selling 

functions were performed for each home 

market channel of distribution and 

customer category and between CP 

Kelco’s EP and home market channels of 

distribution and customer categories. 

While we found differences in the 

levels of intensity performed for some of 

these functions between the home 

market end user and distributor 

channels of distribution, such 

differences are minor and do not 

establish distinct and separate levels of 

trade in Finland. Based on our analysis 

of all of CP Kelco’s home market selling 

functions, we find all home market sales 

were made at the same LOT. Further, we 

find only minor differences between the 

sole home market LOT and that of CP 

Kelco’s EP sales. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine CP Kelco’s 

home market and EP sales were made at 

the same LOT. 

We then compared the NV LOT, based 

on the selling activities associated with 

the transactions between CP Kelco and 

its customers in the home market, to the 

CEP LOT, which is based on the selling 

activities associated with the transaction 

between CP Kelco and its affiliated 

importer, CP Kelco U.S., Inc. Our 

analysis indicates the selling functions 

performed for home market customers 

are either performed at a higher degree 

of intensity or are greater in number 

than the selling functions performed for 

CP Kelco U.S., Inc. For example, in 

comparing CP Kelco’s selling activities, 

we find most of the reported selling 

functions performed in the home market 

are not a part of CEP transactions (i.e., 

sales negotiations, credit risk 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 45953 

management, collection, sales 

promotion, direct sales personnel, 

technical support, guarantees, and 

discounts). For those selling activities 

performed for both home market sales 

and CEP sales (i.e., customer care, 

logistics, inventory maintenance, 

packing, and freight/delivery), CP Kelco 

reported it performed each activity at 

either the same or at a higher level of 

intensity in one or both of the home 

market channels of distribution. We 

note that CEP sales from CP Kelco to CP 

Kelco U.S., Inc. generally occur at the 

beginning of the distribution chain, 

representing essentially a logistical 

transfer of inventory. In contrast, all 

sales in the home market occur closer to 

the end of the distribution chain and 

involve smaller volumes and more 

customer interaction which, in turn, 

require the performance of more selling 

functions. Based on the foregoing, we 

conclude that the NV LOT is at a more 

advanced stage than the CEP LOT. 

Because we found the home market 

and U.S. CEP sales were made at 

different LOTs, 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, 

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 LOT of the CEP sales. See 

19 CFR 351.412(d)(1)(ii). Furthermore, 

we have no other information that 

provides an appropriate basis for 

determining a LOT adjustment. Because 

the data available do not form an 

appropriate basis for making a LOT 

adjustment, and because the NV LOT is 

at a more advanced stage of distribution 

than the CEP LOT, we have made a CEP 

offset to NV in accordance with section 

773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act. 

Currency Conversions 

CP Kelco reported certain U.S. sales 

prices and certain U.S. expenses and 

adjustments in euros. Therefore, we 

made euro-U.S. dollar currency 

conversions, where appropriate, based 

on the exchange rates in effect on the 

dates of the U.S. sales, 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: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted Average 

Margin (percentage) 

CP Kelco ................... 13.89 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of publication of this notice 

in accordance with section 351.224(b) of 

the Department’s regulations. An 

interested party may request a hearing 

within thirty days of publication. See 

section 351.310(c) of the Department’s 

regulations. 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 section 351.310(d) 

of the Department’s regulations. 

Comments 

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs no later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results of review. 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. 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 should 

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. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. Upon 

completion of this administrative 

review, pursuant to section 351.212(b) 

of the Department’s regulations, the 

Department will calculate an assessment 

rate on all appropriate entries. CP Kelco 

has reported entered values for all of its 

sales of subject merchandise to the U.S. 

during the POR. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 351.212(b)(1) of 

the Department’s regulations, 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. Where the assessment 

rate is above de minimis, we will 

instruct CBP to assess duties on all 

entries of subject merchandise by that 

importer. The Department will issue 

appropriate appraisement instructions 

directly to CBP fifteen days after 

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 period 

of review produced by the respondent 

for which it did not know its 

merchandise was destined for the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed 

entries at the all-others rate if there is no 

rate for the intermediate company(ies) 

involved in the transaction. Id. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Furthermore, the following deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

completion of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of CMC from Finland 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 CP Kelco will 

be the rate established in the final 

results of review; (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 6.65 percent (ad valorem) 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). These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
45954 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

1We are adjusting the countervailing duty rate 

applied to Froch because the corrected rate for 

Winner is an integral component of the rate for 

Froch. 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double the 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. E8–18246 Filed 8–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–931] 

Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless 

Pressure Pipe From the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Amended 

Preliminary Countervailing Duty 

Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 10, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published in the Federal 

Register the notice of preliminary 

affirmative countervailing duty 

determination in the investigation of 

circular welded austenitic stainless 

pressure pipe (CWASPP) from the 

People’s Republic of China (the PRC). 

We are amending our preliminary 

determination to correct ministerial 

errors discovered with respect to the 

countervailing duty rate calculated for 

Winner Stainless Steel Tube Co., Ltd. 

(Winner), Winner Machinery Enterprise 

Company Ltd. (Winner HK), and Winner 

Steel Products (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. 

(WSP) (collectively the Winner 

Companies). This correction also affects 

the countervailing duty rate applied to 

Froch Enterprises Co. Ltd. (Froch) (also 

known as Zhangyuan Metal Industry Co. 

Ltd.) as well as the rate applied to all 

other companies not individually 

investigated. 

DATES: Effective Date: See discussion 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Copyak, or Eric B. Greynolds, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2209 and (202) 

482–6071, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background 

On July 10, 2008, we published in the 

Federal Register the preliminary 

determination that countervailable 

subsidies are being provided to 

producers and exporters of CWASPP 

from the PRC, as provided under section 

703 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). See Circular Welded 

Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination and Alignment of 

Final Countervailing Duty 

Determination with Final Antidumping 

Duty Determination, 73 FR 39657 (July 

10, 2008) (Preliminary Determination). 

On July 15, 2008, the Winner 

Companies filed timely allegations of 

significant ministerial errors contained 

in the Department’s Preliminary 

Determination. After reviewing the 

allegations, we have determined that the 

Preliminary Determination included 

significant ministerial errors as 

described under 19 CFR 351.224(g). 

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(e), we have made changes, as 

described below, to the Preliminary 

Determination. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is circular welded 

austenitic stainless pressure pipe not 

greater than 14 inches in outside 

diameter. This merchandise includes, 

but is not limited to, the American 

Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) A–312 or ASTM A–778 

specifications, or comparable domestic 

or foreign specifications. ASTM A–358 

products are only included when they 

are produced to meet ASTM A–312 or 

ASTM A–778 specifications, or 

comparable domestic or foreign 

specifications. 

Excluded from the scope are: (1) 

Welded stainless mechanical tubing, 

meeting ASTM A–554 or comparable 

domestic or foreign specifications; (2) 

boiler, heat exchanger, superheater, 

refining furnace, feedwater heater, and 

condenser tubing, meeting ASTM A–

249, ASTM A–688 or comparable 

domestic or foreign specifications; and 

(3) specialized tubing, meeting ASTM 

A–269, ASTM A–270 or comparable 

domestic or foreign specifications. 

The subject imports are normally 

classified in subheadings 7306.40.5005, 

7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 

7306.40.5064, and 7306.40.5085 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). They may also 

enter under HTSUS subheadings 

7306.40.1010, 7306.40.1015, 

7306.40.5042, 7306.40.5044, 

7306.40.5080, and 7306.40.5090. The 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes 

only; the written description of the 

scope is dispositive. 

Analysis of Alleged Significant 

Ministerial Errors 

A ministerial error is defined in 19 

CFR 351.224(f) as ‘‘an error in addition, 

subtraction, or other arithmetic 

function, clerical error resulting from 

inaccurate copying, duplication, or the 

like, and any other similar type of 

unintentional error which the Secretary 

considers ministerial.’’ With respect to 

preliminary determinations, 19 CFR 

351.224(e) provides that the Department 

‘‘will analyze any comments received 

and, if appropriate, correct any 

significant ministerial error by 

amending the preliminary 

determination * * *’’ A significant 

ministerial error is defined as an error, 

the correction of which, singly or in 

combination with other errors, would 

result in: (1) A change of least five 

absolute percentage points in, but not 

less than 25 percent of the 

countervailable subsidy rate calculated 

in the original (erroneous) preliminary 

determination; or (2) a difference 

between a countervailable subsidy rate 

of zero (or de minimis) and a 

countervailable subsidy rate of greater 

than de minimis or vice versa. See 19 

CFR 351.224(g). We have determined 

that the Preliminary Determination 

contained ‘‘significant’’ ministerial 

errors with respect to the Winner 

Companies and that these ministerial 

errors, in turn, affected the 

countervailing duty rate applied to 

Froch as well as the rate applied to all 

other companies not individually 

investigated.1 As a result, the 

Department is publishing this 

amendment to its preliminary 

determination pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.224(e). 

Amended Preliminary Determination 

Because the combined errors alleged 

by the Winner Companies regarding the 

countervailable subsidy rate calculation 

for the Winner Companies were 

significant, we have amended the 

preliminary countervailing duty rate 

calculations for the Winner Companies. 

We have also amended the preliminary 

countervailing duty rate calculations for 

Froch as well as the rate applied to all 

other companies not individually 

investigated. See Memorandum to 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES