Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 45703 

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

trading company, or exporter) was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, the Department will instruct 

CBP to liquidate un–reviewed entries at 

the all others rate if there is no rate for 

the intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

For MTZ, for which this 

administrative review is rescinded, 

antidumping duties shall be assessed at 

rates equal to the cash deposit of 

estimated antidumping duties required 

at the time of entry, or withdrawal from 

warehouse, for consumption, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(c)(1)(I). The Department will 

issue appropriate assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

publication of this notice. 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this segment 

of the proceeding within five days of the 

public announcement of this notice. See 

19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties 

who wish to request a hearing, or to 

participate if one is requested, must 

submit a written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

Room 1117, within 30 days of the date 

of publication of this notice. Requests 

should contain: (1) the party’s name, 

address and telephone number; (2) the 

number of participants; and (3) a list of 

issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, 

interested parties may submit written 

comments in response to these 

preliminary results. Unless the time 

period is extended by the Department, 

case briefs are to be submitted within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register. See 19 

CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, which 

must be limited to arguments raised in 

case briefs, are to be submitted no later 

than five days after the time limit for 

filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). Parties who submit 

arguments in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

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

summary of the argument; and (3) a 

table of authorities cited. Further, we 

request that parties submitting written 

comments provide the Department with 

a diskette containing an electronic copy 

of the public version of such comments. 

Case and rebuttal briefs must be 

served on interested parties, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). 

Unless extended, the Department will 

issue the final results of this 

administrative review, including the 

results of its analysis of issues raised in 

any written briefs, not later than 120 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Act. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

The preliminary results of this 

administrative review and this notice 

are issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: July 30, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–18028 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–401–808] 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

Sweden: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on purified 

carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from 

Sweden, in response to timely received 

requests for review, submitted by CP 

Kelco AB (respondent), and the Aqualon 

Company, a division of Hercules 

Incorporated (Aqualon), a U.S. 

manufacturer of CMC (petitioner). 

This review covers the period July 1, 

2006, through June 30, 2007. We 

preliminarily determine that U.S. sales 

of subject merchandise have been made 

by CP Kelco AB (CP Kelco) below 

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 based on the 

difference between the export price (EP) 

or constructed export price (CEP) and 

the NV. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

See the ‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’

section of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Edwards or Angelica Mendoza, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–8029 or (202) 482–

3019, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 11, 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on CMC from 

Sweden. See Notice of Antidumping 

Duty Orders: Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Mexico, the Netherlands and Sweden, 

70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005) (Order). On 

July 3, 2007, we published in the 

Federal Register a notice of opportunity 

to request an administrative review of, 

inter alia, the antidumping duty order 

on CMC from Sweden. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 36420 

(July 3, 2007). Pursuant to section 

751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 

351.213(b), Aqualon timely requested an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on CMC from 

Sweden for CP Kelco on July 25, 2007. 

On July 27, 2007, CP Kelco entered its 

appearance and also requested that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on CMC from Sweden. On August 24, 

2007, in accordance with section 751(a) 

of the Act and 19 C.F.R. 351.221(c)(1)(i), 

the Department published a notice of 

initiation of the administrative review of 

this order. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 48613, 

48614 (August 24, 2007). We are 

conducting an administrative review of 

the order on CMC from Sweden for CP 

Kelco for the period July 1, 2006, 

through June 30, 2007. 

On September 6, 2007, the 

Department issued its antidumping duty 

questionnaire to CP Kelco. On October 

12, 2007, we received the section A 

response from CP Kelco (SQA). On 

October 26, 2007, CP Kelco filed its 

sections B and C questionnaire 

responses (SQBC). On November 14, 

2007, Aqualon alleged that CP Kelco 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

45704 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 

made home market sales of CMC at 

prices below the cost of production 

(COP) during the period of review 

(POR). On December 19, 2007, based on 

the information contained in the 

petitioner’s allegation and after 

conducting our own analysis, we 

initiated a sales–below-cost 

investigation of home market sales made 

by CP Kelco. See Memorandum to 

Richard Weible, Director, Office 7, from 

Patrick Edwards, Case Analyst and 

Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, 

Office 7, entitled ‘‘Petitioner’s 

Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of 

Production for CP Kelco AB,’’ dated 

December 19, 2007 (Cost Initiation 

Memorandum). As a result, on 

December 20, 2007, the Department 

requested that CP Kelco respond to 

section D of the Department’s 

questionnaire. CP Kelco submitted its 

section D response on January 10, 2008 

(SQD), including its cost reconciliation. 

On January 16, 2008, petitioner filed 

comments regarding the shutdown of CP 

Kelco’s plant and operations, as 

disclosed in its questionnaire responses. 

On February 1, 2008, the Department 

issued its first supplemental 

questionnaire regarding CP Kelco’s 

responses to sections A through C of the 

Department’s antidumping duty 

questionnaire. CP Kelco submitted its 

response on February 26, 2008 

(Supplemental Response). On March 18, 

2008, due to the complexity of several 

issues in this case, and pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the 

Department extended the deadline for 

the preliminary results by 120 days from 

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

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

Sweden: Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

14436 (March 18, 2008). The 

Department issued its first supplemental 

questionnaire concerning CP Kelco’s 

section D cost response on April 11, 

2008, and CP Kelco submitted its 

supplemental response on April 28, 

2008 (Supplemental Cost Response). On 

May 2, 2008, the Department issued to 

CP Kelco a second supplemental 

questionnaire concerning its sales 

responses regarding sections A through 

C of the questionnaire, and on May 15, 

2008, CP Kelco submitted its response 

(Second Supplemental Response). On 

June 17, 2008, the Department issued a 

second supplemental questionnaire 

concerning CP Kelco’s cost responses, 

and CP Kelco submitted its response on 

June 25, 2008 (Second Supplemental 

Cost Response). On July 2, 2008, 

Aqualon submitted additional 

comments regarding the shutdown of 

operations at the CP Kelco 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 purified CMC, sometimes also 

referred to as purified sodium CMC, 

polyanionic cellulose, or cellulose gum, 

which is a white to off–white, non–

toxic, odorless, biodegradable powder, 

comprising sodium CMC that has been 

refined and purified to a minimum 

assay of 90 percent. Purified CMC does 

not include unpurified or crude CMC, 

CMC Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, 

and CMC that is cross–linked through 

heat treatment. Purified CMC is CMC 

that has undergone one or more 

purification operations, which, at a 

minimum, reduce the remaining salt 

and other by–product portion of the 

product to less than ten percent. The 

merchandise subject to this order is 

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. 

Date of Sale 

CP Kelco reported the invoice date as 

the date of sale for its U.S. sales. The 

Department considers invoice date to be 

the presumptive date of sale (see 19 CFR 

351.401(i)). For purposes of this review, 

we examined whether invoice date or 

another date better represents the date 

on which the material terms of sale were 

established. The Department, in 

reviewing CP Kelco’s questionnaire 

responses, found that the material terms 

of sale are set on the date on which the 

invoice is issued. CP Kelco reported 

that, following the receipt of purchase 

orders, the terms of sale are susceptible 

and subject to changes in price and 

quantity until issuance of the sales 

invoice. See SQA at A–31; see also, 

SQBC at C–12. Therefore, we 

preliminarily determine that invoice 

date is the appropriate date of sale for 

U.S. sales in this administrative review 

because it represents the date upon 

which the material terms of sale were 

established. This is consistent with the 

most recently completed administrative 

reviews of this order. However, for 

instances where the date of shipment 

preceded the date of invoice, we have 

preliminary determined to use the date 

of shipment for those sales. 

Similarly, based on our review of CP 

Kelco’s questionnaire responses, we 

preliminary find that the date of invoice 

constitutes the date on which the 

material terms of sale are established in 

the comparison market (i.e., Sweden). 

See SQBC at B–12. CP Kelco reported 

that the terms of sale recorded on 

purchase orders in the comparison 

market are also subject to change, 

typically in the form of packing and 

product grade (which can affect price). 

Therefore, we are using the invoice date 

as the date of sale for comparison 

market sales. For a further discussion of 

our date of sale analysis, see 

Memorandum to the File through 

Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, 

Office 7, from Patrick Edwards, Senior 

Case Analyst, titled ‘‘Analysis of Data 

Submitted by CP Kelco AB in the 

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from 

Sweden,’’ dated July 30, 2008 (Analysis 

Memorandum). 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of CMC 

from Sweden 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 Act, we compared the EPs and CEPs 

of individual U.S. transactions to 

monthly weighted–average NVs. 

Product Comparisons 

We compared U.S. sales with sales of 

the foreign like product in the 

comparison market. Specifically, in 

making our comparisons, we used the 

following methodology. If an identical 

comparison–market model was 

reported, we made comparisons to 

weighted–average comparison market 

prices that were based on all sales 

which passed the COP test of the 

identical product during the relevant or 

contemporary month. See sections 

771(16) and (35), 773(a)(1) of the Act; 19 

CFR 351.414(b)-(c). If there were no 

contemporaneous sales of an identical 

model, we identified the most similar 

comparison–market model. See id. To 

determine the most similar model, we 

matched the foreign like product based 

on the physical characteristics reported 

by the respondent in the following order 

of importance: (1) grade, (2) viscosity, 

(3) degree of substitution, (4) particle 

size, and (5) solution characteristics. 

Export Price and Constructed 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. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 45705 

1See Analysis Memorandum for a further 

discussion of this issue. 

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) direct sales to end–

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

U.S. affiliate, CP Kelco U.S., to end–

users and distributors (CEP). For 

purposes of these preliminary results, 

we have accepted CP Kelco’s 

classifications. 

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.1 We based EP on the 

packed, delivered prices to the first 

unaffiliated purchasers outside Sweden. 

We made deductions for movement 

expenses in accordance with section 

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

foreign inland freight, international 

freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland 

freight, inland insurance, U.S. 

warehousing, U.S. brokerage and 

handling, and U.S. customs duties, 

while adding freight revenue, in 

accordance with section 772(c)(1) of the 

Act and section 351.401(e) of the 

Department’s regulations. We made 

further adjustments for direct expenses 

(credit expenses) in accordance with 

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

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. 

account receivables. 

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. We 

based CEP on the gross unit price from 

CP Kelco U.S. to its unaffiliated U.S. 

customers, making adjustments where 

necessary for billing adjustments and 

other discounts. Where applicable and 

pursuant to sections 772(c)(2)(A) and 

(d)(1) of the Act, the Department made 

deductions for movement expenses 

(foreign inland freight, international 

freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland 

freight, inland insurance, U.S. 

warehousing, U.S. brokerage and 

handling, and U.S. customs duties), 

while adding freight revenue, where 

applicable, in accordance with section 

772(c)(1) of the Act and section 

351.401(e) of the Department’s 

regulations. In accordance with section 

772(d)(1) 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 Sweden associated 

with economic activities in the United 

States. We also deducted CEP profit in 

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

Act. We also made a deduction from 

CEP for factoring charges incurred by CP 

Kelco U.S. on its U.S. account 

receivables. See section 772(d)(1) of the 

Act. 

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. Pursuant 

to section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act, 

because 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 

that the home market was viable for 

comparison. 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 

On December 19, 2007, based on an 

allegation 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 the home market at 

prices below its COP. See Cost Initiation 

Memorandum. Based on the 

Department’s findings, there is a 

reasonable basis to believe or suspect 

that CP Kelco is selling CMC in Sweden 

at prices below COP. Therefore, 

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

we examined whether CP Kelco’s sales 

in Sweden were made at prices below 

the COP. See Cost Initiation 

Memorandum. 

C. Calculation of Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the 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. 

D. Test of Home Market Prices 

We compared the weighted–average 

COP of CP Kelco’s home market sales to 

home market sales prices (net of billing 

adjustments, any applicable movement 

expenses, direct and indirect selling 

expenses, and packing) of the foreign 

like product as required under section 

773(b) of the Act in order to determine 

whether these sales had been made at 

prices below COP. In determining 

whether to disregard home market sales 

made at prices below 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 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 

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) in 

substantial quantities within the POR 

(i.e., within an extended period of time) 

in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) 

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

prices below the weighted–average per–

unit COP for the POR). We used the 

remaining sales as the basis for 

determining NV, if such sales existed, in 

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

Act. In this review, we found sales 

below the COP and have, as described 

above, disregarded such sales from our 

margin calculations. See Analysis 

Memorandum. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

45706 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 

2The marketing process in the United States and 

comparison market begins with the producer and 

extends to the sale to the final user or customer. 

The chain of distribution involved in the two 

markets 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. 

F. Price–to-Price Comparisons 

We calculated NV based on prices to 

unaffiliated customers or prices to 

affiliated customers that we determined 

to be at arm’s length. See 19 CFR 

351.404(c). We used the sale invoice 

date as the date of sale. See 19 CFR 

351.401(i). We increased price for 

certain billing adjustments where 

appropriate. We made deductions, 

where appropriate, for foreign inland 

freight and inland insurance incurred in 

the comparison market, pursuant to 

section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In 

addition, when comparing sales of 

similar merchandise, we made 

adjustments for differences in cost 

attributable to differences in physical 

characteristics of the merchandise (i.e., 

DIFMER) pursuant to section 

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

351.411. We also made adjustments for 

differences in circumstances of sale 

(COS) in accordance with section 

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

351.410. 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 Act. See 

‘‘Level of Trade’’ section below. 

Additionally, we deducted home market 

packing costs and added U.S. packing 

costs in accordance with sections 

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

made a deduction from NV for factoring 

charges incurred by CP Kelco on its 

home market account receivables. 

G. Price–to-Constructed Value–

Comparison 

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) 

of the Act, we base NV on constructed 

value (CV) if we are unable to find a 

contemporaneous comparison market 

match of identical or similar 

merchandise for the U.S. sale. Section 

773(e) of the Act provides that CV shall 

be based on the sum of the cost of 

materials and fabrication employed in 

making the subject merchandise, selling, 

general and administrative (SG&A) 

expenses, financial expenses, profit, and 

U.S. packing costs. 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 Act, we based SG&A 

expenses, financial expense, 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 the foreign country. 

Accordingly, for sales of CMC for which 

we could not determine the NV based 

on comparison market sales, either 

because there were no useable sales of 

a comparable product or all sales of the 

comparable products failed the sales–

below-cost test, we based NV on CV. 

Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

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

practicable, we determine NV based on 

sales in the home market at the same 

level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP 

transaction. The LOT in the home 

market is the LOT of the starting–price 

sales in the home 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, the LOT is that of the constructed 

sale from the exporter to the importer. 

To determine whether home 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 home 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 home 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 

home 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, 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–on-Steel 

Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6. In the 

present review, CP Kelco did not claim 

a LOT adjustment. See CP Kelco’s SQBC 

at pages B–18 and C–18. In order to 

determine whether the home 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’’),2 including selling 

functions, class of customer (customer 

category), and the level of selling 

expenses for each type of sale. 

CP Kelco reported one LOT in the 

home market, Sweden, with two 

channels of distribution to two classes 

of customers: (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 home market sales to both 

customer categories and 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 

home market channels of distribution, 

including sales negotiations, customer 

care, credit risk management, logistics, 

inventory maintenance, packing, freight 

and delivery services, collection, sales 

promotion, and guarantees, etc. See CP 

Kelco’s SQA at page A–25. Each of these 

selling functions were identical in the 

intensity of their provision or only 

differed in that some were provided 

with ‘‘low–moderate’’ frequency for 

direct sales to end users, while those 

same functions were provided with 

‘‘moderate’’ intensity for direct sales to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 45707 

distributors. After considering all of the 

above, we preliminarily find that CP 

Kelco had only one LOT for its home 

market sales. 

CP Kelco reported one EP LOT and 

one CEP LOT, each with two separate 

channels of distribution in the United 

States. EP sales were made to end users 

and distributors either from inventory or 

made to order, and CEP sales were also 

made to end users and distributors and 

were either made from inventory or 

made to order. Therefore, we 

preliminarily find that CP Kelco has two 

channels of distribution for EP sales, 

and two channels of distribution for 

CEP sales. See CP Kelco’s SQA at pages 

A–13 through A–15. 

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, the customer care unit of CP 

Kelco’s U.S. affiliate (CP Kelco U.S.) 

handles the initial order processing for 

CP Kelco’s EP sales, which are entered 

into the affiliate’s operating system. 

However, all logistics and invoicing 

functions are coordinated by CP Kelco 

in Sweden. These functions include the 

retrieval of merchandise from 

warehouse or the scheduling of 

production to complete orders, 

arranging for shipment, and issuance of 

sales invoices directly to the customer. 

The logistics department of CP Kelco in 

Sweden arranges for freight and delivery 

to CP Kelco’s unaffiliated U.S. 

customers. See CP Kelco’s SQA at page 

A–17 through A–18 and A–25. 

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 Tech. 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 as described in its 

questionnaire responses, after these 

deductions. We found that CP Kelco 

provides almost no selling functions to 

its U.S. affiliate in support of the CEP 

LOT. CP Kelco reported that the only 

services it provided for the CEP sales 

were logistics for freight and delivery, 

and very limited customer care and 

inventory maintenance. See CP Kelco’s 

SQA at page A–13 through A–25. 

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 at a greater frequency on its 

direct sales to unaffiliated U.S. 

customers which are not performed on 

its sales to its affiliate (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 compared the home market 

and EP sales. CP Kelco’s home 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. 

In both markets CP Kelco provided the 

following services: sales negotiating, 

credit risk management, customer care, 

logistics, inventory maintenance, 

packing, freight/delivery, collection, 

sales promotion, direct sales personnel, 

technical support, guarantees and 

discounts. See CP Kelco’s SQA at page 

A–25. Because the selling functions and 

channels of distribution are 

substantially similar, we preliminarily 

determine that the home market LOT is 

the same as the EP LOT. It was, 

therefore, unnecessary to make an LOT 

adjustment for comparison of CP Kelco’s 

home 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 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 affects price 

comparability. CP Kelco reported that it 

provided minimal selling functions and 

services for the CEP LOT and that, 

therefore, the home 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 

home 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. affiliate), we preliminarily find that 

the home market LOT is at a more 

advanced stage of distribution when 

compared to CEP sales because CP 

Kelco provides many selling functions 

in the home market at a higher level of 

service (i.e., sales negotiations, customer 

care, collection, direct sales personnel, 

technical support, etc.) as compared to 

selling functions performed for its CEP 

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

only services it provided for the CEP 

sales were logistics, packing, freight and 

delivery services, and very limited 

inventory maintenance and customer 

care). See CP Kelco’s SQA at page A–25. 

Thus, we find that CP Kelco’s home 

market sales are at a more advanced 

LOT than its CEP sales. As there was 

only one LOT in the home market, there 

were no data 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; therefore, we applied a CEP 

offset to NV for CEP comparisons. 

To calculate the CEP offset, we 

deducted the home market indirect 

selling expenses from NV for home 

market sales that were compared to U.S. 

CEP sales. As such, we limited the home 

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. See section 

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

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415 

based on exchange rates in effect on the 

dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by 

the Federal Reserve Bank. See Import 

Administration website at: http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that for 

the period July 1, 2006, through June 30, 

2007, the following dumping margin 

exists: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted–Average 

Margin (percent) 

CP Kelco AB ................. 6.89 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

for CP Kelco directly to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this administrative review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by companies included in 

these final results of review for which 

the reviewed companies did not know 

their merchandise was destined for the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries at the all–others rate if there is 

no rate for any intermediate company 

involved in the transaction. For a full 

discussion of this clarification, see 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Assessment of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

45708 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 

1Petitioners are Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, 

AK Steel Corporation, North American Stainless, 

United Auto Workers Local 3303, Zanesville Armco 

Independent Organization, Inc. and the United 

Steelworkers of America. 

Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 

6, 2003). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash–deposit rates will 

be effective upon publication of the 

final results of this review for all 

shipments of CMC from Sweden 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for subject 

merchandise produced by CP Kelco, the 

cash–deposit rate will be the rate 

established in the final results of this 

review, except if the rate is less than 

0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis 

within the meaning of 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash 

deposit rate will be zero; 2) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review or the less–than-fair–value 

(LTFV) investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; and 3) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 

covered in this or any previous review 

conducted by the Department, the cash 

deposit rate will be the all–others rate 

of 25.29 percent from the LTFV 

investigation. See Order, 70 FR at 

39735. 

These deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Public Comment 

Pursuant to section 351.224(b) of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

Department will disclose to parties to 

the proceeding any calculations 

performed in connection with these 

preliminary results within five days 

after the date of publication of this 

notice. Pursuant to section 351.309 of 

the Department’s regulations, interested 

parties may submit written comments in 

response to these preliminary results. 

Unless extended by the Department, 

case briefs are to be submitted within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to 

arguments raised in case briefs, are to be 

submitted no later than five days after 

the time limit for filing case briefs. See 

19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and (d)(1). 

Parties who submit arguments in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

the argument: (1) a statement of the 

issues; and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. See 19 CFR 351.309. Case and 

rebuttal briefs must be served on 

interested parties in accordance with 

section 351.303(f) of the Department’s 

regulations. 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. 

Also, pursuant to section 351.310(c) 

of the Department’s regulations, within 

30 days of the date of publication of this 

notice, interested parties may request a 

public hearing on arguments raised in 

the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the 

Secretary specifies otherwise, the 

hearing, if requested, will be held two 

days after the date for submission of 

rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.310(d)(1). Parties will be notified of 

the time and location. 

The Department will publish the final 

results of the administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any case or rebuttal 

brief, no later than 120 days after 

publication of the preliminary results, 

unless extended. See section 

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

351.213(h). 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under section 351.402(f) 

of the Department’s regulations 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. 

This administrative review and notice 

are issued and published 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. E8–18029 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–822] 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

From Mexico; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

respondent ThyssenKrupp Mexinox 

S.A. de C.V. (Mexinox S.A.) and 

Mexinox USA, Inc. (Mexinox USA) 

(collectively, Mexinox) and petitioners,1

the Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel sheet and strip in coils (S4 in coils) 

from Mexico. This administrative 

review covers imports of subject 

merchandise from Mexinox S.A. during 

the period July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

of S4 in coils from Mexico have been 

made below normal value (NV). If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of administrative review, 

we will instruct United States Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties based on the 

difference between the constructed 

export price (CEP) and NV. Interested 

parties are invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. Parties who submit 

argument in these proceedings are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

(1) A statement of the issues, (2) a brief 

summary of the argument, and (3) a 

table of authorities. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maryanne Burke 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) 482–5604 or (202) 482–

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 27, 1999, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless 

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 

Mexico, 64 FR 40560 (July 27, 1999). On 

July 3, 2007, the Department published 

a notice entitled Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 72 

FR 36420 (July 3, 2007), covering, inter 

alia, S4 in coils from Mexico for the 

period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 

2007. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(1), Mexinox and petitioners 

requested that the Department conduct 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES