Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 45943 

1CP Kelco U.S. Inc. and HEM are importers and 

purchasers of subject merchandise, and J.M. Huber 

Corporation is the parent of the CP Kelco group of 

companies. 

2See Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from the 

Netherlands; Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 44099, 44101 

(August 7, 2007), unchanged in the final, Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from the Netherlands: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 70821, 70822 (December 13, 2007) 

(Final Results of First Administrative Review). 

Exporter Producer 

Weightaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

POLYWELL INDUSTRIAL CO., a.k.a. FIRST WAY (H.K.) LIMITED.POLYWELL PLASTIC PRODUCT FACTORY ............................ 64.28 

ZIBO LINZI WORUN PACKING PRODUCT CO., LTD ................ ZIBO LINZI WORUN PACKING PRODUCT CO., LTD ............... 64.28 

SHANDONG QIKAI PLASTICS PRODUCT CO., LTD ................. SHANDONG QIKAI PLASTICS PRODUCT CO., LTD ............... 64.28 

CHANGLE BAODU PLASTIC CO. LTD ....................................... CHANGLE BAODU PLASTIC CO. LTD ...................................... 64.28 

ZIBO LINZI SHUAIQIANG PLASTICS CO. LTD .......................... ZIBO LINZI SHUAIQIANG PLASTICS CO. LTD ......................... 64.28 

ZIBO LINZI QITIANLI PLASTIC FABRIC CO. LTD ...................... ZIBO LINZI QITIANLI PLASTIC FABRIC CO. LTD .................... 64.28 

SHANDONG YOULIAN CO. LTD ................................................. SHANDONG YOULIAN CO. LTD ................................................ 64.28 

ZIBO LINZI LUITONG PLASTIC FABRIC CO. LTD ..................... ZIBO LINZI LUITONG PLASTIC FABRIC CO. LTD ................... 64.28

WENZHOU HOTSON PLASTICS CO. LTD ................................. WENZHOU HOTSON PLASTICS CO. LTD ................................ 64.28 

JIANGSU HOTSON PLASTICS CO. LTD .................................... JIANGSU HOTSON PLASTICS CO. LTD ................................... 64.28 

CANGNAN COLOR MAKE THE BAG .......................................... CANGNAN COLOR MAKE THE BAG ........................................ 64.28 

ZIBO QIGAO PLASTIC CEMENT CO. LTD ................................. ZIBO QIGAO PLASTIC CEMENT CO. LTD ............................... 64.28 

PRC-WIDE RATE ......................................................................... ...................................................................................................... 91.73 

This notice constitutes the 

antidumping duty order with respect to 

laminated woven sacks from the PRC 

pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. 

Interested parties may contact the 

Department’s Central Records Unit, 

Room 1117 of the main Commerce 

building, for copies of an updated list of 

antidumping duty orders currently in 

effect. 

This order is published in accordance 

with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.211. 

Dated: August 4, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–18196 Filed 8–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–421–811] 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From 

the Netherlands; Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

petitioner Aqualon Company, a division 

of Hercules Incorporated (Aqualon), a 

U.S. manufacturer of purified 

carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) and CP 

Kelco B.V., CP Kelco U.S. Inc., Huber 

Engineered Materials (HEM) and J.M. 

Huber Corporation (CP Kelco B.V. is a 

producer of CMC in the Netherlands 1

and is referred to as ‘‘CP Kelco’’ for 

purposes of these preliminary results), 

the Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on CMC from 

the Netherlands. This administrative 

review covers imports of subject 

merchandise produced and exported by 

CP Kelco (formerly known as Noviant 

B.V.).2 The period of review (POR) is 

July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

of subject merchandise by CP Kelco 

have been made at less than normal 

value (NV). If these preliminary results 

are adopted in our final results, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 

duties on appropriate entries based on 

the difference between the export price 

(EP) or constructed export price (CEP) 

and NV. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 7, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen Bailey or Angelica Mendoza, 

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) 482–0193 or (202) 482–

3019, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 11, 2005, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on CMC from the Netherlands. See 

Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands and 

Sweden, 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005) 

(CMC Order). On July 3, 2007, the 

Department published the opportunity 

to request an administrative review of, 

inter alia, CMC from the Netherlands 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). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b), Aqualon, CP Kelco, and 

Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals B.V. 

(Akzo) requested that the Department 

conduct an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on CMC from 

the Netherlands on July 25, 2007, July 

27, 2007, and July 31, 2007, 

respectively. On August 24, 2007, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of initiation of this 

antidumping duty administrative review 

covering sales, entries and/or shipments 

of CMC for the period July 1, 2006, 

through June 30, 2007, from CP Kelco 

and Akzo. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Request for 

Revocation in Part, 72 FR 48613 (August 

24, 2007). 

On September 6, 2007, the 

Department issued its antidumping duty 

questionnaire to CP Kelco and Akzo. 

Akzo withdrew its request for review on 

October 2, 2007. Petitioner withdrew its 

request for review of sales by Akzo on 

October 3, 2007. 

CP Kelco submitted its section A 

questionnaire response (AQR) on 

October 11, 2007, and its sections B and 

C questionnaire responses on October 

26, 2007 (BCQR). 

On November 14, 2007, Aqualon 

alleged that CP Kelco made home 

market sales of CMC at prices below the 

cost of production (COP) during the 

POR. Also on November 14, 2007, in the 

same submission, Aqualon provided 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
45944 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

3The Department addressed Aqualon’s comments 

in its February 8, 2008, Memorandum to Director 

Richard O. Weible, from Stephen Bailey, Case 

Analyst, titled ‘‘Selection of Third Country Market 

for CP Kelco B.V.’’ (Third Country Memorandum). 

4Also on January 17, 2008, the Department 

clarified one of the questions in its January 16, 

2008, supplemental questionnaire asking for 

cancelled sales in both the comparison and U.S. 

markets. See the Department’s January 17, 2008, 

Memo to the File from Stephen Bailey, Case 

Analyst, titled ‘‘Clarification of Question 1 of the 

Sections A–C Supplemental Questionnaire for CP 

Kelco B.V.’’

5See the Department’s July 30, 2008, 

Memorandum to the File from Stephen Bailey, Case 

Analyst titled ‘‘Analysis of Data Submitted by CP 

deficiency comments for CP Kelco’s 

AQR relating to, inter alia, the viability 

of CP Kelco’s home market.3

On November 16, 2007, the 

Department rescinded the 

administrative review with respect to 

Akzo. See Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from the 

Netherlands: Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 64582 (November 16, 

2007). 

On December 21, 2007, the 

Department initiated a sales-below-cost 

investigation of home market sales made 

by CP Kelco. See the Department’s 

December 21, 2007, Memorandum to the 

File, from Stephen Bailey, Case Analyst, 

and Theresa Deeley, Program Manager, 

Office of Accounting, titled ‘‘Petitioner’s 

Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of 

Production for CP Kelco B.V.’’ (Cost 

Initiation Memorandum). As a result, on 

December 27, 2007, the Department 

requested that CP Kelco respond to 

section D of the Department’s 

questionnaire. 

On January 4, 2008, CP Kelco 

submitted comments regarding 

Aqualon’s November 14, 2007, 

submission relating to the viability of 

CP Kelco’s home market. CP Kelco 

submitted its section D response on 

January 10, 2008, including its cost 

reconciliation. On January 16, 2008, the 

Department issued its first sections A–

C supplemental questionnaire to CP 

Kelco. On January 17, 2008, Aqualon 

submitted comments on CP Kelco’s 

January 10, 2008, section D 

questionnaire response.4

On February 8, 2008, the Department 

issued its third-country selection 

memorandum in which Taiwan was 

chosen as the appropriate third-country 

market for CP Kelco. See Third Country 

Memorandum. 

On February 13, 2008, CP Kelco 

submitted its sections A–C 

supplemental questionnaire response 

(SQR). On February 15, 2008, the 

Department issued a section D 

supplemental questionnaire to CP 

Kelco, and on February 28, 2008, CP 

Kelco submitted its response. On March 

10, 2008, Aqualon submitted comments 

on CP Kelco’s February 28, 2008, 

section D supplemental questionnaire 

response. 

On March 18, 2008, the Department 

extended the deadline for the 

preliminary results by 120 days from 

April 1, 2008, until July 30, 2008. See 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

the Netherlands: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 14436 (March 18, 2008). 

On May 5, 2008, the Department 

issued its second sections A–C 

supplemental questionnaire to CP Kelco 

and on May 12, 2008, CP Kelco 

submitted its response (2nd SQR). On 

July 2, 2008, Aqualon submitted 

comments regarding the shutdown of 

operations at the CP Kelco CMC plant in 

Sweden. 

Period of Review 

The 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 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 byproduct portion of the product to less 

than ten percent. The merchandise 

subject to this order is currently 

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 this order is dispositive. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of CMC 

from the Netherlands to the United 

States were made at less than fair value, 

we compared the EP or CEP to the NV, 

as described in the ‘‘Export Price and 

Constructed Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal 

Value’’ sections of this notice, below. In 

accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), we compared the EPs and CEPs of 

individual U.S. transactions to monthly 

weighted-average NVs. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered sales of CMC 

covered by the description in the 

‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section of this 

notice, supra, which were sold in the 

appropriate third-country market, 

Taiwan, during the POR to be the 

foreign like product for the purpose of 

determining appropriate product 

comparisons to CMC sold in the United 

States. For our discussion of market 

viability and selection of comparison 

market, see the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section 

of this notice, infra. We have relied on 

the following five criteria to match U.S. 

sales of the subject merchandise to sales 

in Taiwan of the foreign like product: 

grade, viscosity, degree of substitution, 

particle size, and solution characteristic. 

Where there were no sales of identical 

merchandise in the third-country 

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 

September 6, 2007, antidumping duty 

questionnaire. 

Export Price 

In accordance with section 772 of the 

Act, we calculate either an EP or a CEP, 

depending on the nature of each sale. 

Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as 

the price at which the subject 

merchandise is first sold by the foreign 

exporter or producer before the date of 

importation to an unaffiliated purchaser 

in the United States, or to an 

unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 

the United States. Section 772(b) of the 

Act defines CEP as 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. CP Kelco 

classified two types of sales to the 

United States: (1) Sales to direct end 

user customers (EP sales); and (2) sales 

via its U.S. affiliates, CP Kelco U.S. and 

HEM, to end-users and distributors (CEP 

sales). For purposes of these preliminary 

results, we have accepted CP Kelco’s 

classifications and identified two 

additional classifications. See ‘‘Level of 

Trade’’ section below. 

We calculated EP based on prices 

charged to the first unaffiliated U.S. 

customer. We used the sale invoice date 

as the date of sale.5 We made 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 45945 

Kelco B.V. in the Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from the 

Netherlands’’ (Sales Analysis Memo), for a further 

discussion of this issue. 

6See Id. 7CP Kelco reported sales to Taiwan in its BCQR. 

deductions for movement expenses in 

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

the Act, including foreign inland freight, 

international freight, marine insurance, 

and U.S. customs duty and brokerage. 

Additionally, and consistent with the 

prior administrative review of this 

antidumping duty order, we made a 

deduction from EP for the factoring 

charges incurred by CP Kelco on its U.S. 

accounts receivable, where appropriate. 

See Final Results of First Administrative 

Review, 72 FR at 70822. 

We calculated CEP based on prices 

charged to the first unaffiliated U.S. 

customer after importation. We used the 

sale invoice date as the date of sale.6 We 

based CEP on the gross unit price from 

CP Kelco U.S. and HEM to their 

unaffiliated U.S. customers, making 

adjustments where necessary for billing 

adjustments, pursuant to section 

772(c)(1) of the Act. Where applicable, 

the Department made deductions for 

movement expenses (foreign inland 

freight, international freight, U.S. inland 

freight, U.S. customs duty and 

brokerage, marine insurance and postsale warehousing), in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2) of the Act and section 

351.401(e) of the Department’s 

regulations. We also added freight 

revenue, where applicable. In 

accordance with sections 772(d)(1) and 

(2) of the Act, we also deducted, where 

applicable, U.S. direct selling expenses, 

including credit expenses, U.S. indirect 

selling expenses, and U.S. inventory 

carrying costs incurred in the United 

States and the Netherlands associated 

with economic activities in the United 

States. We also deducted CEP profit in 

accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the 

Act. Additionally, and consistent with 

the prior administrative review of this 

antidumping duty order, we made a 

deduction from CEP for the factoring 

charges incurred by CP Kelco on its U.S. 

accounts receivable, where appropriate. 

See Final Results of First Administrative 

Review, 72 FR at 70822. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability and 

Comparison Market Selection 

In order to determine whether there is 

a sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV (i.e., whether the 

aggregate volume of home market sales 

of the foreign like product is equal to or 

greater than five percent of the aggregate 

volume of U.S. sales), we compared 

respondent’s volume of home market 

sales of the foreign like product to the 

volume of U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. 

Section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act 

provides that the Department may 

determine that home market sales are 

inappropriate as a basis for determining 

NV if the administering authority 

determines that the aggregate quantity of 

the foreign like product sold in the 

exporting country is insufficient to 

permit a proper comparison with the 

sales of the subject merchandise to the 

United States. When sales in the home 

market are not viable, section 

773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act provides that 

sales to a particular third country 

market may be utilized if: (I) The prices 

in such market are representative; (II) 

the aggregate quantity of the foreign like 

product sold by the producer or 

exporter in that third country market is 

five percent or more of the aggregate 

quantity of the subject merchandise sold 

in or to the United States; and (III) the 

Department does not determine that a 

particular market situation in the third 

country market prevents a proper 

comparison with the U.S. price. 

CP Kelco reported, and we 

determined, that CP Kelco’s aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product was not greater than 

five percent of the aggregate volume of 

U.S. sales of subject merchandise. See 

AQR at exhibit A–1; see also Third 

Country Memorandum. Therefore, 

because CP Kelco’s sales in the home 

market did not provide a viable basis for 

calculating NV, we relied on sales to a 

third country as the basis for NV in 

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

of the Act. The following is a 

description of the Department’s 

procedure in selecting the third country 

sales used to calculate NV for sales of 

the foreign like product made by CP 

Kelco. 

In its AQR, CP Kelco provided 

information regarding its sales to 

Taiwan, Germany, and Denmark. Upon 

review of the information provided by 

CP Kelco, in accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(c) of the Act, the Department 

selected Taiwan as the appropriate 

comparison market. The Department 

found that exports of the foreign like 

product to Taiwan were similar to those 

exported to the United States, the 

aggregate quantity of the exports of the 

foreign like product to Taiwan was five 

percent or more of the subject 

merchandise sold in the United States, 

there was no evidence of a particular 

market situation, and exports to Taiwan 

were substantially larger than exports 

either to Germany or to Denmark. In 

addition, the Department did not find 

any evidence on the record suggesting 

that Taiwan would be an inappropriate 

third country market to select as a 

comparison market. Accordingly, on 

February 8, 2008, the Department 

selected Taiwan as the appropriate third 

country for comparison market 

purposes. See Third Country 

Memorandum.7

We also used constructed value (CV) 

as the basis for calculating NV, in 

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

Act, for those sales that did not have 

identical or similar product matches. 

B. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis 

On December 21, 2007, based on a 

request from Aqualon, the Department 

initiated a sales-below-cost investigation 

of CP Kelco because Aqualon provided 

a reasonable basis to believe or suspect 

that CP Kelco is selling CMC in Taiwan 

at prices below its COP. Therefore, 

pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, 

we examined whether CP Kelco’s sales 

in Taiwan were made at prices below 

the COP and requested that CP Kelco 

respond to Section D of the 

Department’s antidumping duty 

questionnaire. See Cost Initiation 

Memorandum. 

C. Calculation of Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated the weightedaverage COP for each model based on 

the sum of CP Kelco’s material and 

fabrication costs for the foreign like 

product, plus amounts for selling 

expenses, general and administrative 

(G&A) expenses, financial expenses, and 

packing costs. We relied on the COP 

information provided by CP Kelco. 

D. Test of Comparison Market Prices 

We compared CP Kelco’s weightedaverage COP figures to that company’s 

Taiwan sales prices of the foreign like 

product, as required under section 

773(b) of the Act, to determine whether 

sales to Taiwan had been made at prices 

below COP. On a product-specific basis, 

we compared COP to Taiwan prices, 

less any applicable movement charges. 

In determining whether to disregard 

Taiwan sales made at prices below the 

COP, we examined, in accordance with 

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

whether such sales were made in 

substantial quantities within an 

extended period of time, and whether 

such sales were made at prices which 

permitted the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time in 

the normal course of trade. Pursuant to 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
45946 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

8See the Department’s Sales Analysis Memo for 

a further discussion of this issue. 

9The marketing process in the United States and 

third country market begins with the producer and 

extends to the sale to the final user or customer. 

The chain of distribution between the two may have 

many or few links, and the respondent’s sales occur 

somewhere along this chain. In performing this 

evaluation, we considered CP Kelco’s narrative 

response to properly determine where in the chain 

of distribution the sale occurs. 

section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where 

less than 20 percent of CP Kelco’s 

Taiwan sales of a given model were 

made at prices below the COP, we did 

not disregard any below-cost sales of 

that model because we determined that 

the below-cost sales were not made 

within an extended period of time in 

‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20 

percent or more of CP Kelco’s Taiwan 

sales of a given model were at prices 

less than COP, we disregarded the 

below-cost sales because: (1) They were 

made within an extended period of time 

in ‘‘substantial quantities,’’ in 

accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) 

and (C) of the Act, and (2) based on our 

comparison of prices to the weightedaverage COPs for the POR, they were at 

prices which would not permit the 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time, as described in section 

773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 

E. Results of Cost Test 

Our sales-below-cost test for CP Kelco 

revealed that less than 20 percent of the 

sales of certain models to Taiwan were 

made at prices below the COP. We 

therefore retained all such sales in our 

analysis and used them as the basis for 

determining NV. Our cost test also 

indicated that more than 20 percent of 

sales of certain models to Taiwan were 

sold at prices below COP within an 

extended period of time and were at 

prices which would not permit the 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time. Thus, in accordance 

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

excluded these below-cost sales from 

our analysis and used the remaining 

above-cost sales as the basis for 

determining NV. 

F. Price-to-Price Comparisons 

We used the sale invoice date as the 

date of sale.8 We calculated NV based 

on prices to unaffiliated customers and 

matched U.S. sales to NV. We made 

deductions, where appropriate, for 

foreign inland freight and international 

freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) 

of the Act. In addition, 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 CFR 351.411, as well as 

for differences in circumstances of sale 

(COS) as appropriate (i.e., commissions 

and credit), in accordance with section 

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

351.410. Finally, we deducted third 

country packing costs and added U.S. 

packing costs in accordance with 

sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

Additionally, and consistent with the 

prior administrative review of this 

antidumping duty order, we made a 

deduction from NV for the factoring 

charges incurred by CP Kelco on its 

home market accounts receivable, where 

appropriate. See Final Results of First 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 70822. 

G. Price-to-CV Comparisons 

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) 

of the Act, we based NV on CV if we 

were unable to find a contemporaneous 

comparison market match for the U.S. 

sale. We calculated CV based on the cost 

of materials and fabrication employed in 

producing the subject merchandise, 

selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, financial expense, 

and profit. In accordance with section 

773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A 

expenses, interest, and profit on the 

amounts CP Kelco incurred and realized 

in connection with the production and 

sale of the foreign like product in the 

ordinary course of trade for 

consumption in Taiwan. For selling 

expenses, we used weighted-average 

Taiwanese selling expenses. Where 

appropriate, we made COS adjustments 

to CV in accordance with section 

773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. 

Level of Trade (LOT) 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 

practicable, we determine NV based on 

sales in the comparison market at the 

same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or 

CEP transaction. The LOT in the 

comparison market is the LOT of the 

starting-price sales in the comparison 

market or, when NV is based on CV, the 

LOT of the sales from which we derive 

SG&A expenses and profit. With respect 

to U.S. price for EP transactions, the 

LOT is also that of the starting-price 

sale, which is usually from the exporter 

to the importer. For CEP transactions, 

the LOT is that of the constructed sale 

from the exporter to the importer. 

To determine whether comparison 

market sales are at a different LOT from 

U.S. sales, we examined stages in the 

marketing process and selling functions 

along the chain of distribution between 

the producer and the unaffiliated 

customer. If the comparison market 

sales are at different LOTs 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, the Department makes an 

LOT adjustment in accordance with 

section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP 

sales, we examine stages in the 

marketing process and selling functions 

along the chain of distribution between 

the producer and the customer. We 

analyze whether different selling 

activities are performed, and whether 

any price differences (other than those 

for which other allowances are made 

under the Act) are shown to be wholly 

or partly due to a difference in LOT 

between the CEP and NV. Under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, we make an 

upward or downward adjustment to NV 

for LOT if the difference in LOT 

involves the performance of different 

selling activities and is demonstrated to 

affect price comparability, based on a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between sales at different LOTs in the 

country in which NV is determined. 

Finally, if the NV LOT is at a more 

advanced stage of distribution than the 

LOT of the CEP, but the data available 

do not provide an appropriate basis to 

determine an LOT adjustment, we 

reduce NV by the amount of indirect 

selling expenses incurred in the foreign 

comparison market on sales of the 

foreign like product, but by no more 

than the amount of the indirect selling 

expenses incurred for CEP sales. See 

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP 

offset provision). 

In analyzing differences in selling 

functions, we determine whether the 

LOTs identified by the respondent are 

meaningful. See Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27371 (May 19, 1997). If the 

claimed LOTs are the same, we expect 

that the functions and activities of the 

seller should be similar. Conversely, if 

a party claims that 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 Administrative Review, 65 FR 

30068 (May 10, 2000) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6. In the 

present review, CP Kelco claimed an 

LOT adjustment. See CP Kelco’s BCQR 

at page B–19. In order to determine 

whether the comparison market 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’’),9

including selling functions, class of 

customer (customer category), and the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 45947 

level of selling expenses for each type 

of sale. 

CP Kelco reported two LOTs in the 

third country market, Taiwan, with two 

channels of distribution: (1) Direct sales 

from the plant to end users, and (2) 

direct sales from the plant to 

distributors. Based on our review of 

evidence on the record, we find that 

third country market sales through both 

channels of distribution were 

substantially similar with respect to 

selling functions and stages of 

marketing. CP Kelco performed the 

same selling functions for sales in both 

third country market channels of 

distribution, including customer care, 

logistics, packing, freight and delivery 

services, collection, sales promotion, 

and guarantees, etc. See CP Kelco’s AQR 

at page A–29, and CP Kelco’s SQR at 

page 7. Accordingly, we preliminarily 

find that CP Kelco had only one LOT for 

its third country market sales. 

CP Kelco reported one EP LOT and 

one CEP LOT each with its own separate 

channel of distribution in the United 

States for EP and CEP sales: (1) Direct 

(EP) sales to end users and distributors, 

and (2) sales through its U.S. affiliate 

(CEP sales) to end users and distributors 

of merchandise. However, in reviewing 

CP Kelco’s questionnaire responses, we 

preliminarily find that CP Kelco has a 

total of four channels of distribution for 

its U.S. sales: (1) Direct sales to end 

users of merchandise produced to order 

(EP sales); (2) direct sales to end users 

of merchandise sold from inventory (EP 

sales); (3) sales through U.S. affiliates 

(CP Kelco U.S. and HEM) to end users 

and distributors of merchandise 

produced to order (CEP sales); and (4) 

sales through U.S. affiliates (CP Kelco 

U.S. and HEM) from warehouse stock 

maintained by each company to end 

users and distributors of merchandise 

(CEP sales). Therefore, we preliminarily 

find that there are two channels of 

distribution for EP sales, and two 

channels of distribution for CEP sales. 

See CP Kelco’s AQR at pages A–16 

through A–29. 

We reviewed the selling functions and 

services performed by CP Kelco in the 

U.S. market for EP sales, as described by 

CP Kelco in its questionnaire responses. 

CP Kelco reported that for sales 

produced to order and pulled from 

stock, CP Kelco’s customer care 

personnel process all orders which are 

entered into its operating system. 

Additionally, sales invoices are issued 

by CP Kelco’s plant directly to the 

customer, and CP Kelco’s logistics 

department arranges for freight and 

delivery to CP Kelco’s unaffiliated U.S. 

customers. Other services provided for 

CP Kelco’s EP sales include: Customer 

care, logistics, packing, freight and 

delivery, and collection, etc. See CP 

Kelco’s AQR at page A–16 through A–

29. 

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 Act. 

See Micron Technology Inc. v. United 

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

Cir. 2001). We reviewed the selling 

functions and services performed by CP 

Kelco on CEP sales relating to the CEP 

LOT, as described by CP Kelco in its 

questionnaire responses, after these 

deductions. We found that CP Kelco 

provides almost no selling functions to 

its U.S. affiliate. CP Kelco reported that 

the only services it provided for the CEP 

sales were logistics, packing, and freight 

and delivery, and very limited customer 

care and inventory maintenance. See CP 

Kelco’s AQR at page A–16 through A–

29. 

We then examined the selling 

functions performed by CP Kelco on its 

EP sales in comparison with the selling 

functions performed on CEP sales (after 

deductions). We found that CP Kelco 

performs an additional layer of selling 

functions on its direct sales to 

unaffiliated U.S. customers which are 

not performed on its sales to affiliates 

(e.g., sales negotiating, credit risk 

management, collection, sales 

promotion, direct sales personnel, 

technical support, guarantees, etc.). See 

CP Kelco’s AQR at page A–29. Because 

these additional selling functions are 

significant, we find that CP Kelco’s 

direct sales to unaffiliated U.S. 

customers (EP sales) are at a different 

LOT than its CEP sales. 

Next, we examined the third country 

market and EP sales. CP Kelco’s third 

country market and EP sales were both 

made to end users and distributors. In 

both cases, the selling functions 

performed by CP Kelco were almost 

identical for both markets. Other than 

commissions, which were only incurred 

on third country sales made to end 

users, in both markets CP Kelco 

provided the following services: Sales 

negotiating, credit risk management, 

customer care, logistics, packing, 

freight/delivery, collection, sales 

promotion, direct sales personnel, 

technical support, and guarantees. See 

CP Kelco’s AQR at page A–29. Because 

the selling functions and channels of 

distribution are substantially similar, we 

preliminarily determine that the third 

country market LOT is the same as the 

EP LOT. It was, therefore, unnecessary 

to make a LOT adjustment for 

comparison of third country market and 

EP prices. 

According to section 773(a)(7)(B) of 

the Act, a CEP offset is appropriate 

when the LOT in the home market or 

third country market is at a more 

advanced stage than the LOT of the CEP 

sales and there is no basis for 

determining whether the difference in 

LOTs between NV and CEP effects price 

comparability. CP Kelco reported that it 

provided minimal selling functions and 

services for the CEP LOT; consequently, 

the third country market LOT is more 

advanced than the CEP LOT. Based on 

our analysis of the channels of 

distribution and selling functions 

performed by CP Kelco for sales in the 

third country market and CEP sales in 

the U.S. market (i.e., sales support and 

activities provided by CP Kelco on sales 

to its U.S. affiliates), we preliminarily 

find that the third country market LOT 

is at a more advanced stage of 

distribution when compared to CEP 

sales because CP Kelco provides many 

selling functions in the third country 

market at a higher level of service (e.g., 

sales negotiations, customer care, 

collection, direct sales personnel, 

technical support, etc.) compared to 

selling functions performed for its CEP 

sales (i.e., CP Kelco reported that the 

only services it provided for CEP sales 

were logistics, packing, and freight and 

delivery, and very limited customer care 

and inventory maintenance). See CP 

Kelco’s AQR at page A–29. Thus, we 

find that CP Kelco’s third country 

market sales are at a more advanced 

LOT than its CEP sales. Because there 

was only one LOT in the third country 

market and no data were available to 

determine the existence of a pattern of 

price differences, and we do not have 

any other information that provides an 

appropriate basis for determining a LOT 

adjustment, we applied a CEP offset to 

NV for CEP comparisons pursuant to 

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

To calculate the CEP offset, we 

deducted the third country market 

indirect selling expenses from NV for 

third country market sales that were 

compared to U.S. CEP sales. We limited 

the third country market indirect selling 

expense deduction by the amount of the 

indirect selling expenses deducted in 

calculating the CEP as required under 

section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act, based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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