26366 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 2, 2009 / Notices 

Suite 357 5th Floor, Syracuse, New 

York 13202, (315) 477–6453, TDD 

(315) 477–6447, Kathryn Boerner. 

North Carolina State Office, 4405 Bland 

Road, Suite 260, Raleigh, North 

Carolina 27609, (919) 873–2062, TDD 

(919) 873–2003, Rebecca Dillard. 

North Dakota State Office, Federal 

Building, Room 208, Post Office Box 

1737, Bismarck, North Dakota 58502, 

(701) 530–2046, TDD (701) 530–2113, 

Barry Borstad. 

Ohio State Office, Federal Building, 

Room 507, 200 North High Street, 

Columbus, Ohio 43215–2477, (614) 

255–2409, TDD (614) 255–2554, Cathy 

Simmons. 

Oklahoma State Office, 100 USDA, Suite 

108, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074– 

2654, (405) 742–1076, TDD (405) 742– 

1007, Tim Henderson. 

Oregon State Office, 1201 NE Lloyd 

Boulevard, Suite 801, Portland, 

Oregon 97232–1274, (503) 414–3340, 

TDD (503)414–3387, Barb Brandon. 

Pennsylvania State Office, One Credit 

Union Place, Suite 330, Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania 17110–2996, (717) 237– 

2282, TDD (717) 237–2261, Martha E. 

Hanson. 

Puerto Rico State Office, IBM Building, 

Suite 601, Munoz Rivera Ave., #654, 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918, (787) 

766–5095 (ext. 256), TDD (787) 766– 

5332, Jan Vargas. 

Rhode Island, Served by Massachusetts 

State Office. 

South Carolina State Office, Strom 

Thurmond Federal Building, 1835 

Assembly Street, Room 1007, 

Columbia, South Carolina 29201, 

(803) 765–5870, TDD (803) 765–5697, 

Lila Moses. 

South Dakota State Office, Federal 

Building, Room 210, 200 Fourth 

Street, SW., Huron, South Dakota 

57350, (605) 352–1132, TDD (605) 

352–1147, Roger Hazuka or Pam 

Reilly. 

Tennessee State Office, Suite 300, 3322 

West End Avenue, Nashville, 

Tennessee 37203–1084, (615) 783– 

1300, TDD (615) 783–1397, Abby 

Boggs. 

Texas State Office, Federal Building, 

Suite 102, 101 South Main, Temple, 

Texas 76501, (254) 742–9769, TDD 

(254) 742–9712, Olivia Pinon. 

Utah State Office, Wallace F. Bennett 

Federal Building, 125 South State 

Street, Room 4311, Salt Lake City, 

Utah 84138, (801) 524–4308, TDD 

(801) 524–3309, Janice Kocher. 

Vermont State Office, City Center, 3rd 

Floor, 89 Main Street, Montpelier, 

Vermont 05602, (802) 828–6021, TDD 

(802) 223–6365, Heidi Setien. 

Virgin Islands, Served by Florida State 

Office. 

Virginia State Office, Culpeper Building, 

Suite 238, 1606 Santa Rosa Road, 

Richmond, Virginia 23229, (804) 287– 

1596, TDD (804) 287–1753, CJ 

Michels. 

Washington State Office, 1835 Black 

Lake Boulevard, Suite B, Olympia, 

Washington 98512, (360) 704–7706, 

TDD (360) 704–7760, Bill Kirkwood. 

Western Pacific Territories, Served by 

Hawaii State Office. 

West Virginia, Parkersburg West 

Virginia County Office, 91 Boyles 

Lane, Parkersburg, West Virginia 

26104, (304) 422–9070, TDD (304) 

284–4836, Penny Thaxton. 

Wisconsin State Office, 4949 Kirschling 

Court, Stevens Point, Wisconsin 

54481, (715) 345–7608 (ext.111), TDD 

(715) 345–7614, Sara Kendall. 

Wyoming State Office, Post Office Box 

82601, Casper, Wyoming 82602–5006, 

(307) 233–6716, TDD (307) 233–6733, 

Alan Brooks. 

[FR Doc. Z9–10645 Filed 6–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–848] 

Commodity Matchbooks From India: 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine 

that commodity matchbooks from India 

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

(LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act). The estimated margins of sales at 

LTFV are listed in the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on this preliminary 

determination. Pursuant to a request 

from the respondent, we are postponing 

for 60 days the final determination and 

extending provisional measures from a 

four-month period to not more than six 

months. Accordingly, we will make our 

final determination not later than 135 

days after publication of the preliminary 

determination in the Federal Register. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 2, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Holly Phelps or Elizabeth Eastwood, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0656 and (202) 

482–3874, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Background 

Since the initiation of this 

investigation (see Commodity 

Matchbooks from India: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 

70965 (Nov. 24, 2008) (Initiation 

Notice)), the following events have 

occurred. 

On December 12, 2008, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission (ITC) 

preliminarily determined that there is a 

reasonable indication that imports of 

commodity matchbooks from India are 

materially injuring the U.S. industry, 

and on December 15, 2008, the ITC 

notified the Department of its findings. 

See Commodity Matchbooks from India; 

Determinations, Investigation Nos. 701– 

TA–459 and 731–TA–1155 

(Preliminary), 73 FR 77840 (Dec. 19, 

2008). 

In January 2009, we selected Triveni 

Safety Matches Pvt. Ltd. (Triveni) as the 

sole mandatory respondent in this 

investigation and issued Triveni an 

antidumping duty questionnaire. See 

Memorandum from James Maeder, 

Office Director, to Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, entitled, 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Commodity Matchbooks from India: 

Selection of Respondents for Individual 

Review,’’ dated January 6, 2009. 

In February 2009, we received 

Triveni’s response to section A of the 

questionnaire (i.e., the section covering 

general information about the 

company). Also in February 2009, 

Triveni informed the Department that 

all the information submitted in its 

response to section A of the 

questionnaire may be treated as public 

information. In February and March 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 2, 2009 / Notices 26367 

1The petitioner in this investigation is D.D. Bean 

and Sons Co. 

2Such commodity matchbooks are also referred 

to as ‘‘for resale’’ because they always enter into 

retail channels, meaning businesses that sell a 

general variety of tangible merchandise, e.g., 

convenience stores, supermarkets, dollar stores, 

drug stores and mass merchandisers. 

3The gross distinctions between commodity 

matchbooks and promotional matchbooks may be 

summarized as follows: (1) If it has no printing, or 

is printed with a generic message such as ‘‘Thank 

You’’ or a generic image such as the American Flag, 

or printed with national or regional store brands or 

corporate brands, it is commodity; (2) if it has 

printing, and the printing includes the name of a 

bar, restaurant, resort, hotel, club, cafe ́/coffee shop, 

grill, pub, eatery, lounge, casino, barbecue, or 

individual establishment prominently displayed on 

the matchbook cover, it is promotional. 

2009, we issued supplemental section A 

questionnaires to Triveni. In March 

2009, we received Triveni’s responses to 

these supplemental questionnaires. 

Also in March 2009, Triveni 

submitted a response to sections B (i.e., 

the section covering comparison market 

sales), C (i.e., the section covering U.S. 

sales), and D (i.e., the section covering 

constructed value (CV)) of the 

questionnaire. Because these 

submissions were so incomplete as to be 

unusable, we afforded Triveni an 

opportunity to correct the deficiencies 

in its responses. At that time, we 

informed Triveni that it was not 

currently required to submit a response 

to section B of the questionnaire in light 

of the fact that Triveni reported that it 

had no viable comparison market for 

commodity matchbooks. 

Also in March 2009, we received 

Triveni’s revised response to section C 

of the questionnaire, as well as a revised 

response to section D. At that time, we 

informed Triveni that its revised section 

C response was unusable in its 

submitted form because it consisted of 

a U.S. sales listing, unaccompanied by 

a narrative response. Therefore, we 

afforded Triveni a final opportunity to 

submit a response to section C of the 

questionnaire. 

Also in March 2009, the petitioner 1

made a timely request pursuant to 

section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.205(e) for a 50-day 

postponement of the preliminary 

determination. Therefore, pursuant to 

section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the 

Department postponed the preliminary 

determination of this investigation until 

May 27, 2009. See Commodity 

Matchbooks from India: Notice of 

Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Determination of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR 

12112 (Mar. 23, 2009). 

In April 2009, we received Triveni’s 

properly-filed response to section C of 

the questionnaire, and we issued 

supplemental questionnaires covering 

sections C and D to Triveni. In April 

and May 2009, we received Triveni’s 

responses to these supplemental 

questionnaires. 

On May 19, 2009, the petitioner 

requested that in the event of a negative 

preliminary determination in this 

investigation, the Department postpone 

the final determination by 60 days. On 

May 26, 2009, Triveni requested that in 

the event of an affirmative preliminary 

determination in this investigation, the 

Department: (1) Postpone its final 

determination by 60 days in accordance 

with 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.210(b)(2)(ii); and 2) extend the 

application of the provisional measures 

prescribed under 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) 

from a four-month period to a six-month 

period. For further discussion, see the 

‘‘Postponement of Final Determination 

and Extension of Provisional Measures’’ 

section of this notice, below. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (POI) is 

October 1, 2007, to September 30, 2008. 

This period corresponds to the four 

most recent fiscal quarters prior to the 

month of the filing of the petition. See 

19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

Scope of Investigation 

The scope of this investigation covers 

commodity matchbooks, also known as 

commodity book matches, paper 

matches or booklet matches.2

Commodity matchbooks typically, but 

do not necessarily, consist of twenty 

match stems which are usually made 

from paperboard or similar material 

tipped with a match head composed of 

any chemical formula. The match stems 

may be stitched, stapled or otherwise 

fastened into a matchbook cover of any 

material, on which a striking strip 

composed of any chemical formula has 

been applied to assist in the ignition 

process. 

Commodity matchbooks included in 

the scope of this investigation may or 

may not contain printing. For example, 

they may have no printing other than 

the identification of the manufacturer or 

importer. Commodity matchbooks may 

also be printed with a generic message 

such as ‘‘Thank You’’ or a generic image 

such as the American Flag, with store 

brands (e.g., Kroger, 7-Eleven, Shurfine 

or Giant); product brands for national or 

regional advertisers such as cigarettes or 

alcoholic beverages; or with corporate 

brands for national or regional 

distributors (e.g., Penley Corp. or 

Diamond Brands). They all enter retail 

distribution channels. Regardless of the 

materials used for the stems of the 

matches and regardless of the way the 

match stems are fastened to the 

matchbook cover, all commodity 

matchbooks are included in the scope of 

this investigation. 

All matchbooks, including 

commodity matchbooks, typically 

comply with the United States 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(CPSC) Safety Standard for Matchbooks, 

codified at 16 CFR 1202.1 et seq. 

The scope of this investigation 

excludes promotional matchbooks, often 

referred to as ‘‘not for resale,’’ or 

‘‘specialty advertising’’ matchbooks, as 

they do not enter into retail channels 

and are sold to businesses that provide 

hospitality, dining, drinking or 

entertainment services to their 

customers, and are given away by these 

businesses as promotional items. Such 

promotional matchbooks are 

distinguished by the physical 

characteristic of having the name and/ 

or logo of a bar, restaurant, resort, hotel, 

club, cafe ́/coffee shop, grill, pub, eatery, 

lounge, casino, barbecue or individual 

establishment printed prominently on 

the matchbook cover. Promotional 

matchbook cover printing also typically 

includes the address and the phone 

number of the business or establishment 

being promoted.3 Also excluded are all 

other matches that are not fastened into 

a matchbook cover such as wooden 

matches, stick matches, box matches, 

kitchen matches, pocket matches, penny 

matches, household matches, strikeanywhere matches (aka ‘‘SAW’’ 

matches), strike-on-box matches (aka 

‘‘SOB’’ matches), fireplace matches, 

barbeque/grill matches, fire starters, and 

wax matches. 

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation is properly classified 

under subheading 3605.00.0060 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Subject 

merchandise may also enter under 

subheading 3605.00.0030 of the HTSUS. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise under investigation is 

dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the preamble to 

the Department’s regulations (see 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997)), in our Initiation Notice we set 

aside a period of time for parties to raise 

issues regarding product coverage, and 

encouraged all parties to submit 

comments within 20 calendar days of 

publication of the Initiation Notice. We 

26368 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 2, 2009 / Notices 

did not receive any comments from 

parties concerning the scope of this 

investigation. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of 

commodity matchbooks from India to 

the United States were made at LTFV, 

we compared the export price (EP) or 

constructed export price (CEP) to the 

normal value (NV), as described in the 

‘‘Export Price/Constructed Export Price’’ 

and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this 

notice, below. In accordance with 

section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we 

compared POI weighted-average EPs 

and CEPs to weighted-average NVs. 

For this preliminary determination, 

we have determined that Triveni did not 

have a viable home or third country 

market during the POI. Therefore, as the 

basis for NV, we used CV when making 

comparisons for Triveni in accordance 

with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. 

Export Price/Constructed Export Price 

For one U.S. sale made by Triveni, we 

used EP methodology, in accordance 

with section 772(a) of the Act, because 

the subject merchandise was sold to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States prior to importation by the 

exporter or producer outside the United 

States and CEP methodology was not 

otherwise warranted based on the facts 

on the record. For the remaining U.S. 

sales made by Triveni, we calculated 

CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) 

of the Act, because the subject 

merchandise was sold for the account of 

Triveni by its subsidiary in the United 

States to unaffiliated purchasers. 

Triveni reported that it sold 

approximately 900 cartons of Triveni 

Brand matchbooks (non-white printed 

matchbooks) to a U.S. customer as part 

of one of its CEP sales of plain white 

commodity matchbooks. Triveni stated 

that it is unable to link the 900 cartons 

of non-white printed matchbooks to a 

specific sale or customer. Therefore, as 

facts available, we have accepted 

Triveni’s data as reported in the U.S. 

sales listing, and we have assigned these 

900 cartons the same control number as 

plain white matchbooks. However, we 

intend to examine Triveni’s recordkeeping practices at verification to 

confirm that Triveni is unable to 

provide the missing sales and product 

characteristic information. In the event 

that we find that Triveni is able to link 

these printed matchbooks to a specific 

U.S. sale, we will revisit this issue in 

our final determination. 

A. Export Price 

We based EP on the packed price to 

an unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. We made deductions for 

movement expenses in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these 

included, where appropriate, foreign 

inland freight, foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses, ocean freight, and 

marine insurance. 

B. Constructed Export Price 

In its May 14, 2009, submission, 

Triveni stated that it reported as the 

date of shipment the date that its U.S. 

freight provider or its U.S. clearing 

agent issued an invoice to Triveni’s U.S. 

affiliate, Triveni International LLC 

(TILLC). According to the documents 

contained in this submission, however, 

it appears that Triveni reported the date 

that the merchandise was shipped from 

India as the date of shipment for U.S. 

sales. Because we do not have accurate 

shipment information on the record, as 

facts available, we have used the earlier 

of the date that Triveni’s U.S. freight 

provider issued an invoice to TILLC, or 

the date that Triveni’s U.S. clearing 

agent issued an invoice to TILLC as the 

date of shipment for purposes of the 

preliminary determination. We will 

examine TILLC’s shipping documents at 

verification to determine which of these 

dates is appropriate for use as the date 

of shipment for purposes of the final 

determination. 

In accordance with our practice, we 

used the earlier of the shipment date 

calculated above, or the U.S. affiliate’s 

invoice date, as the date of sale for CEP 

sales. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams from 

Germany, 67 FR 35497 (May 20, 2002), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

We based CEP on the packed 

delivered prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States. Where 

appropriate, we made adjustments for 

discounts. We made deductions for 

movement expenses, in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these 

included, where appropriate, foreign 

inland freight, foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses, ocean freight, 

marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and 

handling, U.S. customs duties, U.S. 

inland insurance, U.S. inland freight 

expenses (i.e., freight from warehouse to 

the customer), and U.S. warehousing 

expenses. In accordance with section 

772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.402(b), we deducted those selling 

expenses associated with economic 

activities occurring in the United States, 

including direct selling expenses (i.e., 

imputed credit expenses and bank 

charges), and indirect selling expenses 

(including inventory carrying costs and 

other indirect selling expenses). 

Because Triveni reported that it had 

no U.S. dollar borrowings during the 

POI, we recalculated U.S. credit 

expenses using the short-term interest 

rate published by the Federal Reserve, 

in accordance with our practice. See, 

e.g., Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Cold-Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From 

Venezuela, 67 FR 31273 (May 9, 2002), 

unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon 

Steel Flat Products From Venezuela, 67 

FR 62119 (Oct. 3, 2002). In addition, we 

computed the credit period used in our 

credit recalculation using the revised 

dates of shipment noted above. Finally, 

because Triveni did not report an 

amount for U.S. indirect selling 

expenses, we computed these expenses 

using the total expenses and sales value 

shown in TILLC’s 2007 financial 

statements, less any direct expenses 

reported in Triveni’s responses, as facts 

available. For further discussion of these 

adjustments, see the memorandum from 

Holly Phelps, Analyst, to the File, 

entitled, ‘‘Calculations Performed for 

Triveni Safety Matches Pvt. Ltd. for the 

Preliminary Determination in the 2007– 

2008 Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Commodity Matchbooks from India,’’ 

dated May 27, 2009. 

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the 

Act, we further reduced the starting 

price by an amount for profit to arrive 

at CEP. In accordance with section 

772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP 

profit rate using the expenses incurred 

by Triveni and its U.S. affiliate on their 

sales of the subject merchandise in the 

United States and the profit associated 

with those sales. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability and 

Comparison-Market Selection 

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., 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 

Triveni’s volume of home market sales 

of the foreign like product to its volume 

of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. 

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

Based on this comparison, we 

determined that Triveni’s aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product was insufficient to 

permit a proper comparison with U.S. 

sales of the subject merchandise. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 2, 2009 / Notices 26369 

Moreover, we determined that Triveni’s 

volume of sales to each third country 

was also insufficient to permit proper 

comparisons. Therefore, we used CV as 

the basis for calculating NV for Triveni, 

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

the Act. 

B. 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 comparison market at the 

same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or 

CEP. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1), 

the NV LOT is that of the starting-price 

sales in the comparison market or, when 

NV is based on CV, that of the sales 

from which we derive selling, general, 

and administrative (SG&A) expenses 

and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also 

the level of the starting-price sale, 

which is usually from exporter to 

importer. For CEP, it is the level of the 

constructed sale from the exporter to the 

importer. 

To determine whether NV sales are at 

a different LOT than EP or CEP sales, we 

examine stages in the marketing process 

and selling functions along the chain of 

distribution between the producer and 

the unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(2). If the comparison-market 

sales are at a different LOT, and the 

difference affects price comparability, as 

manifested in a pattern of consistent 

price differences between the sales on 

which NV is based and comparison 

market sales at the LOT of the export 

transaction, we make an LOT 

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 

the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV 

level is more remote from the factory 

than the CEP level and there is no basis 

for determining whether the difference 

in levels between NV and CEP affects 

price comparability, we adjust NV 

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

(the CEP-offset provision). See Citric 

Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from 

Canada: Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 73 FR 70324 (Nov. 20, 

2008), unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Citric Acid and Certain 

Citrate Salts from Canada, 74 FR 16843 

(Apr. 13, 2009). 

In this investigation, we found that 

Triveni had no viable home or third 

country market. When NV is based on 

CV, the NV LOT is that of the sales from 

which we derive SG&A expenses and 

profit. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Fresh Atlantic Salmon 

from Chile, 63 FR 2664 (Jan. 16, 1998), 

unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from 

Chile, 63 FR 31411 (June 9, 1998). In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.412(d), the 

Department will make its LOT 

determination under paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section on the basis of sales of the 

foreign like product by the producer or 

exporter. Because it is not possible in 

the instant case to make an LOT 

determination on the basis of sales of 

the foreign like product in the home or 

third country market, the Department 

may use sales of different or broader 

product lines, sales by other companies, 

or any other reasonable basis. Because 

we based the selling expenses and profit 

for Triveni on the weighted-average 

selling expenses incurred and profits 

earned by another Indian producer of 

comparable merchandise who was not 

party to this investigation, there is 

insufficient information on the record in 

this investigation to allow the 

Department to make an LOT adjustment 

or grant a CEP offset to the CV reported 

by Triveni. 

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on CV 

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) 

of the Act, for Triveni we based NV on 

CV because there was no viable home or 

third country market. In accordance 

with section 773(e) of the Act, we 

calculated CV based on the sum of 

Triveni’s cost of materials and 

fabrication for the foreign like product, 

plus amounts for SG&A expenses, profit, 

and U.S. packing costs. We relied on the 

data reported by Triveni, except in the 

following instances: 

i. We revised the numerator of 

Triveni’s reported G&A expense ratio to 

include fringe benefits taxes and to 

exclude selling and transportation 

expenses as well as foreign exchange 

losses. 

ii. We revised the numerator of 

Triveni’s financial expense ratio to 

include foreign exchange losses. In 

addition, we disallowed the reported 

offset for interest income. 

For further discussion of these 

adjustments, see the memorandum from 

LaVonne Clark, Accountant, to Neal 

Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, 

entitled, ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Determination—Triveni Safety Matches 

Pvt. Ltd.,’’ dated May 27, 2009 (Cost 

Calculation Memo). 

Because Triveni does not have a 

viable comparison market, the 

Department cannot determine profit 

under section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, 

which requires sales by the respondent 

in question in the ordinary course of 

trade in a comparison market. Likewise, 

because Triveni does not have sales of 

any product in the same general 

category of products as the subject 

merchandise, we are unable to apply 

alternative (i) of section 773(e)(2)(B) of 

the Act. Further, the Department cannot 

calculate profit based on alternative (ii) 

of this section because Triveni is the 

sole respondent in this investigation 

and 19 CFR 351.405(b) requires that a 

profit ratio under this alternative be 

based on home market sales. Therefore, 

we calculated Triveni’s CV profit and 

selling expenses based on the third 

alternative, any other reasonable 

method, in accordance with section 

773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act. As a result, 

as a reasonable method, we calculated 

Triveni’s CV profit and selling expenses 

using the contemporaneous financial 

statements of Seshasayee Paper and 

Boards Limited, an Indian producer/ 

exporter of merchandise in the same 

general category as commodity 

matchbooks (i.e., paper products). For 

further discussion, see the Cost 

Calculation Memo 

Pursuant to alternative (iii), the 

Department has the option of using any 

other reasonable method, as long as the 

amount allowed for profit is not greater 

than the amount realized by exporters or 

producers ‘‘in connection with the sale, 

for consumption in the foreign country, 

of merchandise that is in the same 

general category of products as the 

subject merchandise,’’ the ‘‘profit cap.’’ 

We are unable to calculate the profit cap 

in this case because, as we noted above, 

we do not have information allowing us 

to calculate the amount normally 

realized by exporters or producers 

(other than the respondent) in 

connection with the sale, for 

consumption in the foreign country, of 

the merchandise in the same general 

category. Therefore, as facts available 

we are applying option (iii), without 

quantifying a profit cap. This decision is 

consistent with the Department’s 

decision in previous cases involving 

similar circumstances. See, e.g., Frozen 

Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil; 

Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 66 FR 51008 (Oct. 5, 2001), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 3; and 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Pure 

Magnesium From Israel, 66 FR 49349 

(Sept. 27, 2001), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 8. See Cost Calculation 

Memo. 

26370 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 2, 2009 / Notices 

We made no adjustments to CV for 

differences in circumstances of sale in 

accordance with sections 

773(a)(6)(B)(iii) and 773(a)(8) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.410 because we had 

inadequate information to do so. 

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. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the 

Act, we intend to verify the information 

relied upon in making our final 

determination for Triveni. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) 

of the Act, we will direct Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of commodity 

matchbooks from India that are entered, 

or withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. We will also instruct CBP to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond equal to the weighted-average 

dumping margins, as indicated in the 

chart below, adjusted for export 

subsidies found in the preliminary 

determination of the companion 

countervailing duty investigation. See 

Commodity Matchbooks from India: 

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination and Alignment of 

Final Countervailing Duty 

Determination with Final Antidumping 

Duty Determination, 74 FR 15444 (Apr. 

6, 2009), (CVD Preliminary Notice). 

Specifically, consistent with our 

longstanding practice, where the 

product under investigation is also 

subject to a concurrent countervailing 

duty investigation, we instruct CBP to 

require a cash deposit or posting of a 

bond equal to the amount by which the 

normal value exceeds the EP or CEP, as 

indicated below, less the amount of the 

countervailing duty determined to 

constitute an export subsidy. See, e.g., 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole 

Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 

67306, 67307 (Nov. 17, 2007). 

Accordingly, for cash deposit purposes, 

we are subtracting from the applicable 

cash deposit rate that portion of the rate 

attributable to the export subsidies 

found in the affirmative countervailing 

duty determination for each respondent 

(i.e., 11.23 percent for Triveni, and 

11.23 percent for ‘‘All Others’’). After 

the adjustment for the cash deposit rates 

attributed to export subsidies, the 

resulting cash deposit rates will be 

80.48 percent for Triveni and 80.48 

percent for ‘‘All Others.’’ These 

instructions suspending liquidation will 

remain in effect until further notice. 

The weighted-average dumping 

margins are as follows: 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

Triveni Safety Matches Pvt. Ltd. 91.71 

All Others .................................... 91.71 

‘‘All Others’’ Rate 

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act 

provides that the estimated ‘‘All Others’’ 

rate shall be an amount equal to the 

weighted average of the estimated 

weighted-average dumping margins 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding any 

zero or de minimis margins, and any 

margins determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. Triveni is the 

only respondent in this investigation. 

Therefore, for purposes of determining 

the ‘‘All Others’’ rate and pursuant to 

section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are 

using the weighted-average dumping 

margin calculated for Triveni, as 

referenced above. See, e.g., Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet 

and Strip in Coils From Italy, 64 FR 

30750, 30755 (June 8, 1999); and Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination: Coated Free 

Sheet Paper from Indonesia, 72 FR 

30753, 30757 (June 4, 2007), unchanged 

in Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated 

Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia, 72 FR 

60636 (Oct. 25, 2007). 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed in our preliminary analysis 

to parties to this proceeding in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of the 

Department’s preliminary affirmative 

determination. If the Department’s final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine before the later of 120 

days after the date of this preliminary 

determination or 45 days after our final 

determination whether imports of 

commodity matchbooks from India are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, the U.S. industry (see 

section 735(b)(2) of the Act). Because we 

are postponing the deadline for our final 

determination to 135 days from the date 

of the publication of this preliminary 

determination (see below), the ITC will 

make its final determination no later 

than 45 days after our final 

determination. 

Public Comment 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary 

determination. Interested parties may 

submit case briefs to the Department no 

later than seven days after the date of 

the issuance of the last verification 

report in this proceeding. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, the content 

of which is limited to the issues raised 

in the case briefs, must be filed within 

five days from the deadline date for the 

submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). A list of authorities used, a 

table of contents, and an executive 

summary of issues should accompany 

any briefs submitted to the Department. 

Executive summaries should be limited 

to five pages total, including footnotes. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, the Department will hold a public 

hearing, if timely requested, to afford 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on arguments raised in case or 

rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 

hearing is requested by an interested 

party. If a timely request for a hearing 

is made in this investigation, we intend 

to hold the hearing two days after the 

rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in 

a room to be determined. See 19 CFR 

351.310. Parties should confirm by 

telephone, the date, time, and location 

of the hearing 48 hours before the 

scheduled date. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate in a hearing 

if one is requested, must submit a 

written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 

1870, within 30 days of the publication 

of this notice. Requests should contain: 

(1) The party’s name, address, and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of the issues 

to be discussed. At the hearing, oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. 

Postponement of Final Determination 

and Extension of Provisional Measures 

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that a final determination may be 

postponed until not later than 135 days 

after the date of the publication of the 

preliminary determination if, in the 

event of an affirmative preliminary 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 2, 2009 / Notices 26371 

1As of January 1, 2005, the HTSUS classification 

for brake rotors (discs) changed from 8708.39.5010 

to 8708.39.5030. As of January 1, 2007, the HTSUS 

classification for brake rotors (discs) changed from 

8708.39.5030 to 8708.30.5030. See Harmonized 

Continued 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by exporters, 

who account for a significant proportion 

of exports of the subject merchandise, or 

in the event of a negative preliminary 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by the petitioner. 

The Department’s regulations, at 19 CFR 

351.210(e)(2), require that requests by 

respondents for postponement of a final 

determination be accompanied by a 

request for extension of provisional 

measures from a four-month period to 

not more than six months. 

On May 26, 2009, Triveni requested 

that in the event of an affirmative 

preliminary determination in this 

investigation, the Department postpone 

its final determination by 60 days. At 

the same time, Triveni requested that 

the Department extend the application 

of the provisional measures prescribed 

under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month 

period to a six-month period. In 

accordance with section 735(a)(2) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2), because 

(1) our preliminary determination is 

affirmative, (2) the requesting exporter 

accounts for a significant proportion of 

exports of the subject merchandise, and 

(3) no compelling reasons for denial 

exist, we are granting this request and 

are postponing the final determination 

until no later than 135 days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. Suspension of liquidation will 

be extended accordingly. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 733(f) 

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

Dated: May 27, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–12826 Filed 6–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–846] 

Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of the 2007 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On March 20, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results and partial rescission of the 2007 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on brake rotors 

from the People’s Republic of China 

covering the period April 1, 2007, 

through August 13, 2007. No interested 

party commented on the preliminary 

results or the partial rescission. We have 

made no changes to the margin 

calculations. Therefore, the final results 

do not differ from the preliminary 

results. The final weighted-average 

dumping margins for the reviewed firms 

are listed below in the section entitled 

‘‘Final Results of Review.’’ 

DATES: Effective Date: June 2, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Smith or Terre Keaton Stefanova, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1766 or (202) 482– 

1280, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on brake rotors 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC) covers one mandatory respondent 

(Yantai Winhere Auto-Part 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Winhere)) and 

the following 11 respondents not 

selected for individual review: Laizhou 

Auto Brake Equipment Co., Ltd. 

(LABEC); Laizhou Hongda Auto 

Replacement Parts Co., Ltd. (Laizhou 

Hongda); Longkou Jinzheng Machinery 

Co., Ltd. (Jinzheng); Longkou TLC 

Machinery Co., Ltd. (Longkou TLC); 

Qingdao Gren (Group) Co. (Gren); 

Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry 

Co., Ltd. (Meita); Xianghe Zichen 

Casting Company, Ltd. (Xianghe 

Zichen); Zibo Botai Manufacturing Co., 

Ltd. (Zibo Botai); Laizhou Luda Sedan 

Fittings Company, Ltd. (Luda); Laizhou 

Sanli (Sanli); and Zibo Golden Harvest 

Machinery Limited Company (ZGOLD). 

We are rescinding this review with 

respect to China National Automotive 

Industry Import & Export Corporation or 

National Automotive Industry Import & 

Export Corporation (CAIEC) and 

Shandong Laizhou CAPCO Industry 

(Laizhou CAPCO). See ‘‘Final Partial 

Rescission of 2007 Administrative 

Review’’ section below. 

On March 20, 2009, the Department 

published the preliminary results and 

partial rescission of this administrative 

review. See Brake Rotors From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results of the 2007 Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission, 74 FR 

11911 (Preliminary Results). We invited 

interested parties to comment on the 

Preliminary Results. Comments were 

due April 20, 2009, however, no 

interested party submitted comments. 

We have conducted this administrative 

review in accordance with sections 751 

and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act) and sections 19 

CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221 of the 

Department’s regulations. 

Period of Review 

The period of review (POR) is April 

1, 2007, through August 13, 2007. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, 

whether finished, semifinished, or 

unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8 

to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) 

and in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 

to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters 

(weight and dimension) of the brake 

rotors limit their use to the following 

types of motor vehicles: Automobiles, 

all-terrain vehicles, vans and 

recreational vehicles under ‘‘one ton 

and a half,’’ and light trucks designated 

as ‘‘one ton and a half.’’ 

Finished brake rotors are those that 

are ready for sale and installation 

without any further operations. Semifinished rotors are those on which the 

surface is not entirely smooth, and have 

undergone some drilling. Unfinished 

rotors are those which have undergone 

some grinding or turning. 

These brake rotors are for motor 

vehicles, and do not contain in the 

casting a logo of an original equipment 

manufacturer (OEM) which produces 

vehicles sold in the United States, (e.g., 

General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, 

Toyota, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in 

this order are not certified by OEM 

producers of vehicles sold in the United 

States. The scope also includes 

composite brake rotors that are made of 

gray cast iron, which contain a steel 

plate, but otherwise meet the above 

criteria. Excluded from the scope of this 

order are brake rotors made of gray cast 

iron, whether finished, semifinished, or 

unfinished, with a diameter less than 8 

inches or greater than 16 inches (less 

than 20.32 centimeters or greater than 

40.64 centimeters) and a weight less 

than 8 pounds or greater than 45 pounds 

(less than 3.63 kilograms or greater than 

20.41 kilograms). 

Brake rotors are currently classifiable 

under subheading 8708.39.5010 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS).1 Although the