11140 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2001 / Notices

from our analysis certain comparisonmarket sales of PVA products.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

We calculated normal value based on

packed, FOB or delivered prices to

unaffiliated purchasers in Taiwan. We

made adjustments to the starting price

for returns, where appropriate. We also

made deductions, where appropriate,

for inland freight (inclusive of inland

insurance) pursuant to section

773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we

made adjustments for differences in the

physical characteristics of the

merchandise in accordance with section

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

351.411, as well as 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 by deducting

home market direct selling expenses

(i.e., credit expenses) and adding U.S.

direct selling expenses (i.e., credit

expenses and bank charges). Finally, we

deducted home market packing costs

and added U.S. packing costs in

accordance with 773(a)(6) of the Act.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margin exists for the period

May 1, 1998 through April 30, 1999:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Chang Chun Petrochemical Co.,

Ltd ............................................. 0.00

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the

Secretary will disclose to the parties to

the proceeding the calculations

performed in connection with this

review, within five days after the date

of publication of the preliminary results

of this review. Any interested party may

request a hearing within 30 days of

publication. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 44 days after the date of

publication or the first business day

thereafter.

Issues raised in hearings will be

limited to those raised in the respective

case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case

briefs from interested parties and

rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues

raised in the respective case briefs, may

be submitted not later than 30 days and

37 days, respectively, from the date of

publication of these preliminary results.

Parties who submit case briefs or

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are

requested to submit with each argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument. Parties

are also encouraged to provide a

summary of the arguments not to exceed

five pages and a table of statutes,

regulations and cases cited.

The Department will subsequently

issue the final results of this

administrative review, including the

results of its analysis of issues raised in

any such written briefs, not later than

120 days after the date of publication of

this notice.

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 B–099,

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. The request 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.

Cash Deposit and Assessment

Requirements

The final results of this review shall

be the basis for the assessment of

antidumping duties on entries of

merchandise covered by this review and

for future deposits of estimated duties.

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Upon completion of this review,

the Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the U.S. Customs

Service.

If these preliminary results are

adopted in the final results, we will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

assess antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries covered by this

review for which any importer-specific

assessment rates calculated in the final

results of this review are above de

minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

For assessment purposes, we intend to

calculate importer-specific assessment

rates for the subject merchandise by

aggregating the dumping margins

calculated for all U.S. sales to each

importer and dividing this amount by

the total entered value of the sales

examined.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

antidumping duty review for all

shipments of PVA from Taiwan,

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) of the Act: (1) No cash

deposits will be required for PVA from

Taiwan that is produced by Chang Chun

(unless the margin established for Chang

Chun in the final results of this review

is above de minimis); (2) for exporters

not covered in this review, but covered

in the LTFV investigation or prior

reviews, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

from the LTFV investigation or the prior

review; (3) if the exporter is not a firm

covered in this review, a prior review,

or the original 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 19.21

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made

effective by the LTFV investigation.

These requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

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.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.213. Effective January 20, 2001,

Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the

duties of the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration.

Dated: January 30, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD

Enforcement II.

[FR Doc. 01–4405 Filed 2–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–836]

Polyvinyl Alcohol from Japan:

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 a request by the

petitioner, Air Products and Chemicals,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2001 / Notices 11141

1On January 19, 2001, counsel for Air Products

and Chemicals, Inc. (‘‘Air Products’’) stated that Air

Products’ PVA business was sold to Celanese Ltd.

Inc.,1 the Department of Commerce is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on

polyvinyl alcohol from Japan. This

review covers one manufacturer/

exporter, Kuraray Co., Ltd. (‘‘Kuraray’’).

The period of review is May 1, 1999,

through April 30, 2000.

We preliminarily determine that sales

of subject merchandise have been made

below normal value. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of administrative review,

we will instruct the Customs Service to

assess antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries. Interested parties

are invited to comment on these

preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 22, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara Wojcik–Betancourt, at (202)

482–0629, or Brian Smith, at (202) 482–

1766, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Act’’), by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In

addition, unless otherwise indicated, all

references are made to the Department

of Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’s’’)

final regulations at 19 CFR Part 351

(April 2000).

Background

On May 14, 1996, the Department

published in the Federal Register an

antidumping duty order on polyvinyl

alcohol (‘‘PVA’’) from Japan (61 FR

24286). On May 16, 2000, the

Department published in the Federal

Register, a notice advising of the

opportunity to request an administrative

review of this order for the period May

1, 1999, through April 30, 2000 (65 FR

31141). On May 31, 2000, we received

a request from the petitioner, Air

Products and Chemicals, Inc.

(‘‘petitioner’’), to conduct an

administrative review of Kuraray. On

June 1, 2000, we received a letter from

the petitioner asking the Department to

correct the period of review (‘‘POR’’) for

this review, which was incorrectly

stated in the petitioner’s May 31, 2000,

letter requesting initiation of the

administrative review. On July 7, 2000,

we published a notice of initiation of

this review for Kuraray (65 FR 41942).

On July 5, 2000, the Department

issued an antidumping questionnaire to

Kuraray. Because the Department

disregarded sales that failed the cost test

in the last completed review for Kuraray

(see Notice of Final Results of the First

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Polyvinyl Alcohol from Japan,

65 FR 50182 (August 17, 2000)) (‘‘Final

Results of Polyvinyl Alcohol from

Japan’’), the Department had reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that

Kuraray’s sales of the foreign like

product may have been made at prices

below the cost of production (‘‘COP’’),

as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of

the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section

773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated an

investigation to determine whether

Kuraray made home market sales during

the POR at prices below its COP, and

required Kuraray to respond to the COP

section of the questionnaire issued in

July 2000. The Department received

Kuraray’s responses to the questionnaire

in August and September 2000.

We issued a supplemental

questionnaire to Kuraray in November

2000. A response to the supplemental

questionnaire was received in December

2000.

Scope of Review

The product covered by this review is

PVA. PVA is a dry, white to creamcolored, water-soluble synthetic

polymer. This product consists of

polyvinyl alcohols hydrolyzed in excess

of 85 percent, whether or not mixed or

diluted with defoamer or boric acid.

Excluded from this review are PVAs

covalently bonded with acetoacetylate,

carboxylic acid, or sulfonic acid

uniformly present on all polymer chains

in a concentration equal to or greater

than two mole percent, and PVAs

covalently bonded with silane

uniformly present on all polymer chains

in a concentration equal to or greater

than one-tenth of one mole percent.

PVA in fiber form is not included in the

scope of this review.

The merchandise under review is

currently classifiable under subheading

3905.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS

subheading is provided for convenience

and customs purposes, our written

description of the scope is dispositive.

Period of Review

The POR is May 1, 1999, through

April 30, 2000.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether the

respondent’s sales of the subject

merchandise to the United States were

made at below normal value, we

compared, where appropriate, the

export price (‘‘EP’’) and constructed

export price (‘‘CEP’’) to the normal

value, as described below. In

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

the Act, we compared, where

appropriate, the export prices and CEPs

of individual transactions to the

monthly weighted-average price of sales

of the foreign like product made in the

ordinary course of trade (see section

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act).

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

produced by Kuraray covered by the

description in the ‘‘Scope of the

Review’’ section, above, to be foreign

like products for purposes of

determining appropriate product

comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared

U.S. sales to sales made in the home

market within the contemporaneous

window period, which extends from

three months prior to the U.S. sale until

two months after the sale. Where there

were no sales of identical merchandise

made in the home market in the

ordinary course of trade, we compared

U.S. sales to sales of the most similar

foreign like product made in the

ordinary course of trade. In making the

product comparisons, we matched

foreign like products based on the

physical characteristics reported by the

respondent in the following order:

viscosity, hydrolysis, particle size,

tackifier, defoamer, ash, color, volatiles,

and visual impurities.

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

During the POR, Kuraray sold subject

merchandise to the U.S. market (1)

directly through its wholly-owned U.S.

affiliate (Kuraray America Inc.); (2)

through Kuraray America via its whollyowned home market affiliate (Kuraray

Trading Co., Ltd.) (hereafter referred to

as Kuraray Trading); or (3) directly

through unaffiliated Japanese trading

companies.

We examined the facts surrounding

the U.S. sales process for those U.S.

sales which Kuraray made through its

affiliates. Based on the evidence on the

record, we found that Kuraray either

sells the subject merchandise directly to

its U.S. affiliate or through Kuraray

Trading, which in turn sells the subject

merchandise to the U.S. affiliate. For

U.S. sales made only through its U.S.

11142 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2001 / Notices

affiliate, the U.S. customer contacts

Kuraray’s U.S. affiliate, who then places

the order with Kuraray. Kuraray

arranges for delivery of the goods from

Japan to the unaffiliated U.S. customer

and issues its invoice to its U.S. affiliate

for payment of the goods. Even though

Kuraray’s U.S. affiliate does not have a

warehouse, it takes title to the goods

once it pays Kuraray for the goods. The

U.S. affiliate then issues its sales invoice

to the unaffiliated U.S. customer and

collects payment for the goods (see

pages 11 and 12, and 16 through 18, and

Exhibits A.3.a.–1, A.3.a.–2 and A.3.c, of

the August 31, 2000, antidumping

questionnaire response).

For U.S. sales made through Kuraray

Trading to the U.S. affiliate, the U.S.

affiliate still transmits the U.S.

customer’s order to Kuraray. However,

Kuraray sells the goods to Kuraray

Trading in Japan. Kuraray Trading then

issues the U.S. affiliate its sales invoice.

Kuraray Trading arranges for delivery of

the goods from Japan to the unaffiliated

U.S. customer, and the U.S. affiliate

takes title to the goods once it pays

Kuraray Trading for the goods. The U.S.

affiliate also issues its sales invoice to

the unaffiliated U.S. customer and

collects payment for the goods (see

pages 11 and 12, and 16 through 18, and

Exhibits A.3.a.–1, A.3.a.–2 and A.3.c, of

the August 31, 2000, antidumping

questionnaire response). Therefore,

based on the facts on this record, the

Department preliminarily determines

that these sales were made ‘‘in the

United States’’ within the meaning of

section 772(b) of the Act, and, thus,

should be treated as CEP transactions

(see AK Steel Corp., et al. v. United

States, 226 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir

2000)).

For Kuraray’s U.S. sales not made in

the United States (i.e., not made through

its U.S. affiliate), we calculated EP

based on the reported packed FOB price

between Kuraray and the unaffiliated

trading company in Japan. We made

deductions, as appropriate, from the

starting price for foreign inland freight

from the plant to the port of exportation,

foreign warehousing expenses, foreign

inland insurance, and foreign brokerage

and handling expenses, in accordance

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

For Kuraray’s U.S. sales made in the

United States through its U.S. affiliate,

we based CEP on packed CIF or

delivered prices to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. We

made deductions, where appropriate,

for foreign inland freight from the plant

to the port of exportation, foreign inland

insurance, foreign brokerage and

handling expenses, international freight,

palletization charges, foreign

warehousing expenses, U.S. brokerage

and handling expenses, U.S. Customs

duties (which include harbor

maintenance and merchandise

processing fees), and U.S. inland freight

expenses (freight from port to the

customer), in accordance with section

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

In accordance with section 772(d)(1)

of the Act, we deducted from CEP direct

and indirect selling expenses that were

associated with Kuraray’s economic

activities occurring in the United States.

We also deducted from CEP an amount

for profit, in accordance with section

772(d)(3) of the Act.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating normal value (i.e., the

aggregate volume of home market sales

of the foreign like product is five

percent or more of the aggregate volume

of U.S. sales), we compared the

respondent’s volume of home market

sales of the foreign like product to the

volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, in accordance with 19

CFR 351.404(b). We determined that the

quantity of foreign like product sold in

the exporting country was sufficient to

permit a proper comparison with the

sales of the subject merchandise to the

United States because Kuraray made

sales in its home market which were

greater than five percent of its sales in

the U.S. market. Therefore, in

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

of the Act, we based normal value on

home market sales in Japan.

Level of Trade/CEP Offset

In accordance with section 773(a)(7)

of the Act, to the extent practicable, we

determined normal value based on sales

in the comparison market at the same

level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the EP or CEP

transaction. The normal value LOT is

that of the starting-price sales in the

comparison market or, when normal

value is based on constructed value, that

of the sales from which we derive

selling, general and administrative

(‘‘SG&A’’) expenses and profit. For

export price, the LOT is also the level

of the starting-price sale, which is

usually from the exporter to the

importer. For CEP, it is the level of the

constructed export sale from the

exporter to the affiliated importer.

To determine whether normal value

sales are at a different LOT than export

price or CEP, we examine stages in the

marketing process and selling functions

along the chain of distribution between

the producer and the customer. 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 normal

value is based and comparison-market

sales at the LOT of the export

transaction, we make a LOT adjustment

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

Finally, for CEP sales, if the normal

value level is more remote from the

factory than the CEP level and there is

no basis for determining whether the

difference in the levels between normal

value and CEP affects price

comparability, we adjust normal value

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

(the CEP offset provision). See Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,

62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

We note that the U.S. Court of

International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) has held

that the Department’s practice of

determining LOT for CEP transactions

after CEP deductions is an

impermissible interpretation of section

772(d) of the Act. See, e.g., Borden, Inc.,

v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221,

1241–42 (CIT 1998) (Borden); and

Micron Technology, Inc. v. United

States, 40 F. Supp. 2d 481 (CIT 1999).

The Department believes, however, that

its practice is in full compliance with

the statute. On June 4, 1999, the CIT

entered final judgement in Borden on

the LOT issue. See, i.e., Borden, Inc. v.

United States, Court No. 96–08–01970,

Slip Op. 99–50 (CIT June 4, 1999). The

government has filed an appeal of

Borden, which is currently pending

before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit. Consequently, the

Department has continued to follow its

normal practice of adjusting CEP under

section 772(d) prior to starting a LOT

analysis, as articulated by the

Department’s regulations at section

351.412.

In this case, Kuraray reported two

customer categories (i.e., distributors

and end users) and three channels of

distribution (sales through unaffiliated

distributors to end users, direct sales to

end users, and sales through its affiliate

to end users) for its home market sales.

In its response, Kuraray claims that its

sales to unaffiliated home market

customers (i.e., end users and

distributors) are at the same LOT as its

sales made through affiliated customers

because Kuraray provides the same

selling services to its unaffiliated and

affiliated customers. Specifically,

Kuraray identified the following selling

services to both types of customer: (1)

Salespeople visits; (2) inventory

maintenance; (3) after-sale service and

technical advice; (4) advertising; (5)

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2001 / Notices 11143

freight and delivery; and (6) handling of

rejected merchandise. Based on our

review of the record evidence, we agree

with the respondent’s claim that all

home market sales are at the same LOT

(see exhibit A.3.c. of the August 31,

2000, submission).

Kuraray had both EP and CEP sales in

the U.S. market. Kuraray reported that

its EP sales were made through one

channel of distribution (i.e., sales

through unaffiliated Japanese trading

companies to U.S. end users). Kuraray

also reported that its CEP sales were

made through two channels of

distribution (i.e., sales through its U.S.

affiliate via its home market affiliate and

sales through its U.S. affiliate only),

which we have treated as one LOT

because there is no apparent difference

in the selling functions performed by

Kuraray (see exhibit A.3.c. of the August

31, 2000, submission). In analyzing

Kuraray’s selling activities for its EP

sales, we found that the EP sales

involved basically the same selling

functions associated with the home

market LOT described above (i.e.,

inventory maintenance, freight and

delivery, and handling of rejected

merchandise). Therefore, based upon

this information, we preliminarily

determine that the LOT for all EP sales

is the same as that in the home market.

For sales which we categorized as

CEP sales, after making the appropriate

deductions under section 772(d) of the

Act, we found that the remaining

expenses associated with selling

activities performed by Kuraray are

limited to general and administrative

expenses that are reflected in the CEP

price. In contrast, the normal value

prices include selling expenses

attributable to selling activities

performed by Kuraray for the home

market, such as sales support, freight

and delivery functions (see exhibit

A.3.c. of the August 31, 2000,

submission). Accordingly, we have

concluded that CEP is at a different LOT

from the normal value LOT.

We then examined whether a LOT

adjustment or CEP offset may be

appropriate. In this case, Kuraray only

sold at one LOT in the home market;

therefore, there is no information

available to determine a pattern of

consistent price differences between the

sales on which normal value is based

and the comparison market sales at the

LOT of the export transaction, in

accordance with the Department’s

normal methodology as described above

(see Final Results Polyvinyl Alcohol

from Japan; and Porcelain-on-Steel

Cookware from Mexico Final Results of

Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068

(May 10, 2000), and accompanying

Decision Memorandum at Comment 6).

Further, we do not have information

which would allow us to examine

pricing patterns based on respondent’s

sales of other products, and there are no

other respondents or other record

information on which such an analysis

could be based. Accordingly, because

the data available do not provide an

appropriate basis for making a LOT

adjustment, but the LOT in the home

market is at a more advanced stage of

distribution than the LOT of the CEP,

we made a CEP offset adjustment in

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

the Act.

Cost of Production Analysis

Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the

Act, we initiated a COP investigation of

sales made by Kuraray in the home

market.

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated the weightedaverage COP, by grade, based on the

sum of the cost of materials and

fabrication, general and administrative

(‘‘G&A’’) expenses, and packing costs.

We relied on the submitted COP data

except for the following: (1) we adjusted

Kuraray’s reported per-unit costs to

account for the overstatement of acetic

acid amounts; and (2) we adjusted

Kuraray’s reported labor cost for one

product where Kuraray failed to report

a value (i.e., a positive value) (see

Preliminary Results Calculation

Memorandum from Team to the File,

dated January 30, 2001).

B. Test of Home Market Prices

We compared the weighted-average

COP to the comparison-market sales 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 the COP

within an extended period of time in

substantial quantities, and whether such

prices were sufficient to permit the

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time. On a grade-specific

basis, we compared the COP to the

comparison-market prices, less any

applicable movement charges,

discounts, and direct and indirect

selling expenses.

C. Results of the COP Test

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

Act, where less than 20 percent of the

respondent’s sales of a given product

were made at prices below the COP, we

did not disregard any below-cost sales

of that product because we determined

that the below-cost sales were not made

in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of the respondent’s

sales of a given product were made at

prices below the COP, we disregarded

the below-cost sales because such sales

were found to be made within an

extended period of time in ‘‘substantial

quantities,’’ in accordance with sections

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

because the below-cost sales of the

product were 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.

Based on this test, we excluded from

our analysis certain comparison-market

sales of PVA products that were made

at below-COP prices (see Preliminary

Results Calculation Memorandum from

Team to the File, dated January 30,

2001).

Price-to-Price Comparisons

We calculated normal value based on

both packed, FOB or delivered prices

Kuraray charged to its unaffiliated

purchasers in Japan and packed, FOB or

delivered prices Kuraray Trading

charged to its unaffiliated purchasers in

Japan. We made adjustments to the

starting price for discounts, where

appropriate. We also made deductions,

where appropriate, for inland freight

(i.e., plant to warehouse and warehouse

to customer), inland insurance and

warehousing expenses, pursuant to

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

For all comparisons, we made a

circumstance-of-sale adjustment, where

appropriate, for differences in credit

expenses, pursuant to section 773

(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 C.F.R.

351.410(c).

For comparisons to CEP sales, we also

deducted from normal value the lesser

of comparison-market indirect selling

expenses and indirect selling expenses

deducted from CEP (the CEP offset),

pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the

Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f).

For comparisons to both export price

and CEP sales, we made adjustments to

normal value for differences in packing

expenses, in accordance with section

773(a)(6) of the Act. We also made

adjustments to normal value, where

appropriate, for differences in costs

attributable to differences in the

physical characteristics of the

merchandise, pursuant to section

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

351.411.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margin exists for the period

May 1, 1999, through April 30, 2000:

11144 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2001 / Notices

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Kuraray Co., Ltd. .......................... 4.87

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the

Department will conduct disclosure

within five days after the date of

publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 30 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the date of publication or the

first business day thereafter.

Issues raised in hearings will be

limited to those raised in the respective

case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case

briefs from interested parties and

rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues

raised in the respective case briefs, may

be submitted not later than 30 days and

37 days, respectively, from the date of

publication of these preliminary results.

Parties who submit case briefs or

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are

requested to submit with each argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument. Parties

are also encouraged to provide a

summary of the arguments not to exceed

five pages and a table of statutes,

regulations and cases cited.

The Department will issue the final

results of this administrative review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written briefs

or at the hearing, if held, not later than

120 days after the date of publication of

this notice.

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 B–099,

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. The request 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.

Cash Deposit and Assessment

Requirements

The final results of this review shall

be the basis for the assessment of

antidumping duties on entries of

merchandise covered by this review and

for future deposits of estimated duties.

The Department shall determine and

the Customs Service shall assess

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appropriate appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service upon

completion of this review. For Kuraray,

for duty assessment purposes, we intend

to calculate importer-specific

assessment rates by aggregating the

dumping margins calculated for all U.S.

sales to each importer and dividing this

amount by the total entered value of the

same sales of subject merchandise for

each importer. In accordance with 19

CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries covered

by this review if any importer-specific

assessment rate calculated in the final

results of this review is above de

minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent).

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of the final results of this

antidumping duty administrative review

for all shipments of PVA from Japan,

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided by section

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

rate for Kuraray will be the rate

established in the final results; (2) if the

exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, a prior review, or the original

less-than-fair-value (‘‘LTFV’’)

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will continue to be 77.49

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made

effective by the LTFV investigation.

These requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

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.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.213. Effective January 20, 2001,

Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the

duties of the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration.

Dated: January 30, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD

Enforcement II.

[FR Doc. 01–4406 Filed 2–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–508–810]

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing

Duty Determination: Pure Magnesium

From Israel

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 22, 2001.

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marian

Wells or Melanie Brown, Office of CVD/

AD Enforcement I, Import

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Room 3096, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–6309

and (202) 482–4987, respectively.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) preliminarily

determines that countervailable

subsidies are being provided to

producers and exporters of pure

magnesium from Israel. For information

on the estimated countervailing duty

rates, please see the ‘‘Suspension of

Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petitioners

The petition in this investigation was

filed by the Magnesium Corporation of

America (‘‘Magcorp’’), the United Steel

Workers of America, Local 8319, and

the United Steelworkers of America,

Local 482 (the petitioners).

Case History

Since the publication of the notice of

initiation in the Federal Register (see

Notice of Initiation of Countervailing

Duty Investigation: Pure Magnesium

from Israel, 65 FR 68126 (November 14,

2000) (Initiation Notice)), the following

events have occurred. On November 8,

2000, we issued countervailing duty

questionnaires to the Government of

Israel (GOI) and the sole producer/

exporter of the subject merchandise,

Dead Sea Magnesium Ltd. (DSM). On

December 20, 2000, we postponed the

preliminary determination of this

investigation until no later than

February 14, 2001. See, Pure

Magnesium from Israel: Postponement

of Time Limit for Preliminary

Determination of Countervailing Duty

Investigation, 65 FR 81489 (December

26, 2000). We received responses to our

initial questionnaires from the GOI and

DSM on January 3, 2001. Between

January 11 and 30, 2001, we issued

supplemental questionnaires to the GOI

and DSM, and we received responses to

those questionnaires in January and

February.