Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Notices 977 

will be assessed uniformly on all entries 

of the respective importers made during 

the POR if these preliminary results are 

adopted in the final results of review. 

The Department intends to issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by SeAH for 

which SeAH did not know that the 

merchandise it sold to the intermediary 

(e.g., a reseller, trading company, or 

exporter) was destined for the United 

States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries at the all-others rate if there is no 

rate for the intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective 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entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 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)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 

The cash deposit rate for SeAH will be 

that 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) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not participating in this 

review, 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-thanfair-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 7.00 

percent, the all-others rate made 

effective by the LTFV investigation. See 

Amended Final Determination and 

Order, 60 FR 10061, 10065 (Feb. 23, 

1995). These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with these preliminary 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(c), interested parties may 

submit cases briefs not later than 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues 

raised in the case briefs, may be filed 

not later than five days after the date for 

filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). Parties who submit case 

briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are encouraged to submit 

with each 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) and (d)(2). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, Room 1870, 

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. Issues raised in the hearing 

will be limited to those raised in the 

respective case briefs. The Department 

will issue the final results of this 

administrative review, including the 

results of its analysis of the 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 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. 

This administrative review and notice 

are published in accordance with 

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

and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: December 31, 2009. 

Susan Kuhbach, 

Senior Director, Office 1, Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29 Filed 1–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–533–839] 

Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From 

India: Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing 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 Alpanil 

Industries, Ltd. (Alpanil) under the 

countervailing duty order on carbazole 

violet pigment 23 (CVP–23) from India 

for the period January 1, 2007, through 

December 31, 2007. We preliminarily 

determine that subsidies are being 

provided to Alpanil on the production 

and export of CVP–23 from India. See 

‘‘Preliminary Results of Administrative 

Review’’ section, below. If the final 

results remain the same as the 

preliminary results of this review, we 

will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to assess 

countervailing duties. Interested parties 

are invited to comment on the 

preliminary results of this 

administrative review. See the ‘‘Public 

Comment’’ section below. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 7, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi 

Blum or Myrna Lobo, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0197 or (202) 482– 

2371, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 29, 2004, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register the countervailing duty (CVD) 

order on CVP–23 from India. See Notice 

of Countervailing Duty Order: Carbazole 

Violet Pigment 23 from India, 69 FR 

77995 (December 29, 2004) (CVP–23 

Order). On December 1, 2008, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of this 

order. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 72764 (December 1, 2008). 

On December 30, 2008, the 

Department received a timely request to 

conduct an administrative review from 

Alpanil, an Indian producer and 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

978 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Notices 

1The bracketed section of the product 

description, [3,2-b:3’,2’-m], is not business 

proprietary information; the brackets are simply 

part of the chemical nomenclature. 

exporter of subject merchandise. On 

December 31, 2008, the Department 

received a timely request from the 

Government of India (GOI) also on 

behalf of Alpanil to conduct an 

administrative review. On February 2, 

2009, the Department initiated an 

administrative review of the CVD Order 

on CVP–23 from India covering Alpanil 

for the period January 1, 2007, through 

December 1, 2007. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 5821 

(February 2, 2009). On February 24, 

2009, domestic interested parties Nation 

Ford Chemical Company and Sun 

Chemical Corporation, who were 

petitioners in the original investigation, 

entered an appearance (petitioners). 

The Department issued a 

questionnaire to Alpanil and the GOI on 

February 17, 2009. On March 23, 2009, 

the GOI timely submitted its 

questionnaire response. Alpanil timely 

submitted its questionnaire response on 

April 8, 2009. The Department issued its 

first supplemental questionnaire to 

Alpanil on April 30, 2009; Alpanil 

submitted its response on June 2, 2009. 

Further, the Department issued a second 

supplemental questionnaire to Alpanil 

on November 6, 2009; Alpanil 

responded on December 1, 2009. On 

November 30, 2009, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

the GOI; the GOI responded on 

December 15, 2009. 

On May 5, 2009, the Department 

received a timely request from 

petitioners to conduct verification 

pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.307(b)(1)(v). 

On August 19, 2009, the Department 

extended the time limit for the 

preliminary results of this 

administrative review until December 

31, 2009. See Carbazole Violet Pigment 

23 from India: Extension of Time Limit 

for Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 41864 (August 19, 2009). 

On December 11, 2009, Alpanil 

submitted a letter stating that it changed 

its name on April 9, 2009, to Meghmani 

Pigments. We are evaluating whether to 

consider this request in this 

administrative review. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order is CVP–23 identified as Color 

Index No. 51319 and Chemical Abstract 

No. 6358–30–1, with the chemical name 

of diindolo [3,2-b:3’,2’-m] 

triphenodioxazine, 8,18-dichloro-5,15- 

diethy-5,15-dihydro-, and molecular 

formula of C34H22Cl2N4O2.1 The subject 

merchandise includes the crude 

pigment in any form (e.g., dry powder, 

paste, wet cake) and finished pigment in 

the form of presscake and dry color. 

Pigment dispersions in any form (e.g., 

pigments dispersed in oleoresins, 

flammable solvents, water) are not 

included within the scope of the review. 

The merchandise subject to this order is 

classifiable under subheading 

3204.17.9040 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Although the HTSUS subheading is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise covered by the order is 

dispositive. 

Subsidies Valuation Information 

Benchmark Interest Rates 

For programs requiring the 

application of a benchmark interest rate, 

19 CFR 351.505(a)(1) states a preference 

for using an interest rate that the 

company could have obtained on a 

comparable commercial loan in the 

market. Also, 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(i) 

stipulates that when selecting a 

comparable commercial loan that the 

recipient ‘‘could actually obtain on the 

market’’ the Department will normally 

rely on actual short-term and long-term 

loans obtained by the firm. However, 

when there are no comparable 

commercial loans, the Department may 

use a national average interest rate, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(iv), 

if a program under review is a 

government provided, short-term loan 

program, the preference would be to use 

a company-specific annual average of 

the interest rates on comparable 

commercial loans during the year in 

which the government-provided loan 

was taken out, weighted by the 

principal amount of each loan. For this 

review, the Department required a 

rupee-denominated short-term loan 

benchmark rate to determine benefits 

received under the Pre-Shipment Export 

Financing program. For further 

information regarding this program, see 

the ‘‘Pre-Shipment Shipment Export 

Financing’’ section below. 

Alpanil did not have any rupeedenominated short-term loans during 

the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii), the Department 

used a national average rupeedenominated short-term interest rate, as 

reported in the International Monetary 

Fund’s publication International 

Financial Statistics (IMF Statistics) as 

the benchmark to determine if Alpanil 

received benefits under the preshipment export financing program. 

A. Programs Preliminarily Determined 

To Be Countervailable 

1. Pre-Shipment and Post-Shipment 

Export Financing 

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), 

through commercial banks, provides 

short-term pre-shipment financing, or 

‘‘packing credits,’’ to exporters. Upon 

presentation of a confirmed export order 

or letter of credit to a bank, companies 

may receive pre-shipment loans for 

working capital purposes (i.e., 

purchasing raw materials, warehousing, 

packing, transportation, etc.) for 

merchandise destined for exportation. 

Companies may also establish preshipment credit lines upon which they 

draw as needed. Limits on credit lines 

are established by commercial banks 

and are based on a company’s 

creditworthiness and past export 

performance. Credit lines may be 

denominated either in Indian rupees or 

in a foreign currency. Commercial banks 

extending export credit to Indian 

companies must, by law, charge interest 

at rates determined by the RBI. 

Post-shipment export financing 

consists of loans in the form of 

discounted trade bills or advances by 

commercial banks. Exporters qualify for 

this program by presenting their export 

documents to the lending bank. The 

credit covers the period from the date of 

shipment of the goods to the date of 

realization of the proceeds from the sale 

to the overseas customer. Under the 

Foreign Exchange Management Act of 

1999, exporters are required to realize 

proceeds from their export sales within 

180 days of shipment. Post-shipment 

financing is, therefore, a working capital 

program used to finance export 

receivables. In general, post-shipment 

loans are granted for a period of not 

more than 180 days. 

The Department has previously 

determined that the pre-shipment and 

post-shipment export financing program 

conferred countervailable subsidies on 

the subject merchandise because: (1) 

The provision of the export financing 

constitutes a financial contribution 

pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(i) of the 

Act as a direct transfer of funds in the 

form of loans; (2) the provision of the 

export financing confers benefits on the 

respondents under section 771(5)(E)(ii) 

of the Act to the extent that the interest 

rates provided under these programs are 

lower than comparable commercial loan 

interest rates; and (3) these programs are 

specific under section 771(5A)(A) and 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Notices 979 

2See CVP–23 Final Determination at ‘‘PreShipment Financing.’’ We note, however, that 

where a company is not able to demonstrate that 

its pre-shipment loans are tied to destinations other 

than the United States, we normally attribute all 

pre-shipment loans to total exports. See 19 CFR 

351.525(b). See also Polyethylene Terepthalate 

Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

7708 (February 11, 2008), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum (PET Film From India 

2005 Review) at ‘‘Pre- and Post-Shipment.’’ 

(B) of the Act because they are 

contingent upon export performance. 

See Final Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination: Carbazole Violet 

Pigment 23 from India, 69 FR 67321 

(November 17, 2004), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (CVP–23 Final 

Determination), at ‘‘Pre-Shipment 

Export Financing.’’ See also Notice of 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip 

(PET Film) From India, 67 FR 34905 

(May 16, 2002), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum (PET 

Film Final Determination), at ‘‘PreShipment and Post-Shipment 

Financing.’’ There is no new 

information or evidence of changed 

circumstances that would warrant 

reconsidering this finding. Therefore, 

we continue to find these programs 

countervailable. 

In this review, Alpanil reported that 

it did not receive any loans under the 

post-shipment export financing program 

that were outstanding in the POR. 

Therefore, for purposes of the 

preliminary results, we find that Alpanil 

did not use the post-shipment export 

financing program. Furthermore, 

Alpanil reported that it did not use 

these programs with respect to sales 

destined to the United States. See 

Alpanil’s questionnaire response dated 

April 8, 2009 at page 11. Alpanil 

explained that its pre-shipment export 

financing was tied to specific export 

orders and is repaid with either postshipment export financing or export 

proceeds, whichever is received earlier. 

Further, Alpanil stated that the loans 

granted were provided at Alpanil’s 

request to the bank by letter supported 

by the specific export order, based on 

which it was able to identify the market 

and, that the program was not used with 

respect to its sales destined for the 

United States. See Alpanil’s 

supplemental questionnaire response 

dated June 2, 2009 at pages 3 and 4. 

Although in the original investigation 

Alpanil was able to demonstrate that 

none of its pre-shipment loans were 

provided for exports to the United 

States,2 in the documentation Alpanil 

provided in the instant review it did not 

demonstrate that the loans were only for 

shipments to countries other than the 

United States. The Department 

specifically asked Alpanil to tie its 

export orders on each borrowing during 

the POR and to identify the destination 

of the export sales. In response, Alpanil 

referred the Department to a sample 

document (‘‘Form A,’’ containing details 

of the specific export order) that, 

according to Alpanil, contained the 

relevant information upon which the 

pre-shipment loan was released by the 

bank. However, this document 

pertained to only one specific loan out 

of more than sixty loans during the 

period of review. Alpanil did not 

provide information with regard to the 

remaining loans. Alpanil further stated 

that the spreadsheet it provided 

contained details showing how the 

loans were tied to a particular export 

sale; however, in our review of the 

spreadsheet, we did not find sufficient 

detail to identify the export destination 

for all of these loans to confirm whether 

the destination for these loans was not 

the United States. See Alpanil’s second 

supplemental response dated December 

1, 2009 at pages 16, 18 and 19. 

With regard to pre-shipment loans, 

the benefit conferred is the difference 

between the amount of interest the 

company paid on the government loan 

and the amount of interest it would 

have paid on a comparable commercial 

loan (i.e., the short-term benchmark). 

Because Alpanil did not provide the 

information necessary to determine the 

markets for which the exports covered 

by the pre-shipment loans were 

destined, Alpanil did not demonstrate 

that these loans were tied to a particular 

market. We therefore find that the preshipment export loans reported by 

Alpanil are conferred on total exports 

and are not tied to particular markets. 

To calculate the benefit of the preshipment export loans, we compared 

the actual interest paid on the loans 

with the amount of interest that would 

have been paid at the benchmark 

interest rate for short term loans. See 

‘‘Benchmark Interest Rates’’ section, 

above. Since the interest that would be 

due at the benchmark interest rate 

exceeded the actual interest paid 

monthly by Alpanil, a benefit was 

conferred. We summed the differences 

and divided the total benefit by 

Alpanil’s total exports during the POR. 

Accordingly, we preliminarily 

determine the net countervailable 

subsidy under the pre-shipment export 

financing program to be 0.80 percent ad 

valorem for Alpanil. 

2. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme 

(DEPBS) 

The DEPBS program enables 

exporting companies to earn import 

duty exemptions in the form of 

passbook credits rather than cash. All 

exporters are eligible to earn DEPBS 

credits on a post-export basis, provided 

that the GOI has established a Standard 

Input Output Norm (SION) for the 

exported product. DEPBS credits can be 

used to pay import duties for any 

subsequent imports, regardless of 

whether they are consumed in the 

production of an exported product. 

DEPBS credits are valid for twelve 

months and are transferable after the 

foreign exchange is realized from the 

export sales on which the DEPBS credits 

are earned. With respect to subject 

merchandise, the GOI has established a 

SION. See CVP–23 Final Determination, 

at ‘‘Duty Entitlement Passbook 

Scheme.’’ Therefore, CVP–23 exporters 

were eligible to earn DEPBS credits. 

Alpanil reported that the rate at which 

they earned DEPBS credits was 5 

percent for the January 1 through March 

31, 2007 period and 7 percent for the 

April 1 through December 31, 2007, 

period. 

In the CVP–23 Final Determination, 

the Department determined that, under 

the DEPBS, a financial contribution, as 

defined under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of 

the Act, is provided because the GOI 

provides credits for the future payment 

of import duties; and that a benefit is 

conferred pursuant to section 771(5)(E) 

of the Act in the total amount of the 

credits earned because the GOI does not 

have in place and does not apply a 

system that is reasonable and effective 

for the purposes intended to confirm 

which inputs, and in what amounts, are 

consumed in the production of the 

exported products. Therefore, under 

section 351.519(a)(4) of the 

Department’s regulations and section 

771(5)(E) of the Act, the entire amount 

of the credits earned during the POR 

constitutes a benefit. Finally, because 

this program is contingent upon export, 

it is specific under sections 771(5A)(A) 

and (B) of the Act. See CVP–23 Final 

Determination. See also PET Film Final 

Determination, at ‘‘DEPBS.’’ No new 

information or evidence of changed 

circumstances has been presented since 

our final determination in CVP–23 to 

warrant reconsideration of this finding. 

Therefore, we continue to find the 

DEPBS program countervailable. 

In accordance with past practice and 

pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.519(b)(2), we 

continue to find that benefits from the 

DEPBS are conferred as of the date of 

exportation of the shipment for which 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

980 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Notices 

the pertinent DEPBS credits are earned. 

We calculated the benefit on an ‘‘asearned’’ basis upon export because 

DEPBS credits are provided as a 

percentage of the value of the exported 

merchandise on a shipment-byshipment basis and, as such, it is at this 

point that recipients know the exact 

amount of the benefit (e.g., the available 

credits that amount to a duty 

exemption). 

Alpanil reported and the GOI 

confirmed that Alpanil used this 

program during the POR. Alpanil 

reported that it received post-export 

credits on shipments of subject 

merchandise under the DEPBS program 

during the POR. Alpanil also reported 

that it paid required application fees for 

each DEPBS license associated with its 

export shipments made during the POR. 

We recognize that these fees provide an 

allowable offset to DEPBS benefits in 

accordance with section 771(6)(A) of the 

Act. Because DEPBS credits are earned 

on a shipment-by-shipment basis, we 

consider that the benefits are tied to 

particular products and markets, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(5). 

As such, we measure the benefit by 

identifying all DEPBS credits granted on 

exports of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR. We 

calculated the subsidy rate by dividing 

the benefit (net of application fees) by 

total exports of subject merchandise to 

the United States during the POR. On 

this basis, we determine Alpanil’s 

countervailable subsidy from the DEPBS 

program to be 6.99 percent ad valorem. 

B. Programs Preliminarily Determined 

To Be Not Used 

We preliminarily determine that 

Alpanil did not apply for or receive 

benefits during the POR under the 

programs listed below: 

1. Export Promotion Capital Goods 

Scheme (EPCGS). 

2. Export Processing Zones (EPZs)/ 

Export Oriented Units (EOUs) Programs. 

3. Income Tax Exemption Scheme 

(Sections 10A and 10B). 

4. Market Development Assistance. 

5. Special Imprest Licenses. 

6. Duty Free Replenishment 

Certificate. 

7. Advance License Scheme. 

8. State of Gujarat (SOG) Sales Tax 

Incentive Scheme. 

9. State of Maharashtra (SOM) Sales 

Tax Incentive Scheme. 

C. Programs Determined To Be 

Terminated 

Income Tax Exemption Scheme 80 HHC 

In the CVP–23 Final Determination, 

the Department had determined that 

deductions of profit derived from 

exports under section 80HHC of India’s 

Income Tax Act are countervailable. See 

CVP–23 Final Determination, at 

‘‘Programs Determined to Confer 

Subsidies.’’ In this review, Alpanil 

states that the GOI has discontinued the 

income tax exemption scheme 80 HHC 

effective April 1, 2004. The GOI has 

reported that this scheme was available 

only up to March 31, 2004. In addition, 

Alpanil reported that this program has 

not been replaced by another program, 

and that there are no residual benefits 

accruing due to the exports of CVP–23 

from India under this program. The 

Department found in another case that 

this program had been terminated 

effective March 31, 2004, and that no 

replacement program had been 

implemented. See Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

from India: Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 6530 (February 12, 2007), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, at ‘‘Income Tax 

Exemption Scheme 80HHC (80HHC).’’ 

There is no information on the record of 

this proceeding to contradict that 

determination. Therefore, pursuant to 

19 CFR § 351.526(d) of the regulations, 

we find that this program has been 

terminated. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4)(i), we have calculated an 

individual subsidy rate for Alpanil for 

the POR. We preliminarily determine 

the total countervailable subsidy to be 

7.79 percent ad valorem for Alpanil. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective 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)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 

The cash deposit rate for the company 

listed above will be that 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) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not 

participating in this review, 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 in 

the original countervailing duty 

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 20.55 

percent ad valorem, the all-others rate 

from the final determination in the CVD 

investigation. See Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination: 

Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From 

India, 69 FR at 67321. These cash 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon publication of the final results 

of this review, the Department shall 

determine, and Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) shall assess, 

countervailing duties on all appropriate 

entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(2), the Department will 

instruct CBP to assess countervailing 

duties by applying the rates included in 

the final results of the review to the 

entered value of the merchandise. The 

Department intends to issue appropriate 

assessment instructions directly to CBP 

15 days after the date of publication of 

the final results of this review. 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

We plan on disclosing the 

calculations from our preliminary 

results 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, 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

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. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, 

interested parties may submit written 

comments in response to these 

preliminary results. The Department 

will notify interested parties of the 

deadlines for submitting case and 

rebuttal briefs. Parties who submit 

arguments in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

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

summary of the argument; and (3) a 

table of authorities cited. 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Notices 981 

days after the date of publication of this 

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

of the Act. 

These preliminary results are issued 

and published in accordance with 

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

Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: December 31, 2009. 

Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27 Filed 1–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–904] 

Certain Activated Carbon From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Rescission of Changed Circumstances 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 7, 2010. 

SUMMARY: On January 29, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published a notice of 

initiation and preliminary results of 

changed circumstance review (‘‘CCR’’) 

of the antidumping duty order on 

certain activated carbon from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See 

Certain Activated Carbon From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Initiation and Preliminary Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review, and 

Intend To Revoke Order in Part, 74 FR 

4736 (January 29, 2009) (‘‘Initiation and 

Preliminary Results’’). We are now 

rescinding this CCR because the 

Department, on December 7, 2009, 

resolved the underlying issue for the 

CCR in a parallel final scope ruling on 

the same matter. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry 

Huang, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 1401 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: 202–482–4047. 

Background 

On November 14, 2008, the 

Department received a letter from Rolf 

C. Hagen (USA), Corp. (‘‘Hagen’’) 

requesting a scope ruling that certain 

fish tank filter products imported by 

Hagen, that contain no more than 500 

grams of activated carbon or a 

combination of activated carbon and 

zeolite, are outside the scope of the 

antidumping order on certain activated 

carbon from the PRC. See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Activated Carbon from the People’s 

Republic of China, 72 FR 20988 (April 

27, 2007) (‘‘Order’’). On November 20, 

2008, Calgon Carbon Corporation and 

Norit Americas Inc. (collectively, 

‘‘Petitioners’’) submitted comments 

stating that they agreed with Hagen’s 

scope ruling request. On December 15, 

2008, the Department received a request 

from Hagen for a changed circumstance 

review and for the Department to 

revoke, in part, the Order pursuant to 

sections 751(b)(1) and 782(h)(2) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), with respect to the same products 

covered by its scope request. On 

December 17, 2008, Petitioners again 

submitted comments stating that they 

agreed with the specific proposed 

exclusion language contained in 

Hagen’s December 15, 2008, submission. 

The Department published the Initiation 

and Preliminary Results on January 29, 

2009, and requested public comments 

on the proposed exclusion language. 

The Department also extended the 

deadline for the final results of this 

CCR. See Certain Activated Carbon 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Extension of Time Limit for the Final 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Review, 74 FR 51257 (October 6, 2009). 

On December 7, 2009, based on the 

Department’s review of Hagen’s scope 

request, in light of the scope language in 

the Order, the petition, and the ITC 

determination, the Department 

determined in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.225(k)(1) that the commercial fish 

tank filter products described in the 

Hagen scope request are different from 

activated carbon which is covered by 

the scope of the Order. Because we 

determined the scope language to be 

dispositive, the Department found the 

fish tank filter products described in 

Hagen’s request to be outside the scope 

of the Order pursuant to the criteria 

within 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1). See 

Memorandum for John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, from Jerry Huang, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, regarding ‘‘Final Scope Ruling: 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Activated Carbon from the People’s 

Republic of China,’’ dated December 7, 

2009 (‘‘Final Scope Ruling’’). 

Scope of Changed Circumstances 

Review 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is certain activated carbon. Certain 

activated carbon is a powdered, 

granular, or pelletized carbon product 

obtained by ‘‘activating’’ with heat and 

steam various materials containing 

carbon, including but not limited to coal 

(including bituminous, lignite, and 

anthracite), wood, coconut shells, olive 

stones, and peat. The thermal and steam 

treatments remove organic materials and 

create an internal pore structure in the 

carbon material. The producer can also 

use carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in place of 

steam in this process. The vast majority 

of the internal porosity developed 

during the high temperature steam (or 

CO2 gas) activated process is a direct 

result of oxidation of a portion of the 

solid carbon atoms in the raw material, 

converting them into a gaseous form of 

carbon. 

The scope of this order covers all 

forms of activated carbon that are 

activated by steam or CO2, regardless of 

the raw material, grade, mixture, 

additives, further washing or postactivation chemical treatment (chemical 

or water washing, chemical 

impregnation or other treatment), or 

product form. Unless specifically 

excluded, the scope of this order covers 

all physical forms of certain activated 

carbon, including powdered activated 

carbon (‘‘PAC’’), granular activated 

carbon (‘‘GAC’’), and pelletized 

activated carbon. 

Excluded from the scope of the order 

are chemically activated carbons. The 

carbon-based raw material used in the 

chemical activation process is treated 

with a strong chemical agent, including 

but not limited to phosphoric acid, zinc 

chloride sulfuric acid or potassium 

hydroxide, that dehydrates molecules in 

the raw material, and results in the 

formation of water that is removed from 

the raw material by moderate heat 

treatment. The activated carbon created 

by chemical activation has internal 

porosity developed primarily due to the 

action of the chemical dehydration 

agent. Chemically activated carbons are 

typically used to activate raw materials 

with a lignocellulosic component such 

as cellulose, including wood, sawdust, 

paper mill waste and peat. 

To the extent that an imported 

activated carbon product is a blend of 

steam and chemically activated carbons, 

products containing 50 percent or more 

steam (or CO2 gas) activated carbons are 

within this scope, and those containing 

more than 50 percent chemically 

activated carbons are outside this scope. 

This exclusion language regarding 

blended material applies only to 

mixtures of steam and chemically 

activated carbons. 

Also excluded from the scope are 

reactivated carbons. Reactivated carbons 

are previously used activated carbons 

that have had adsorbed materials 

removed from their pore structure after 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES