[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11150-11152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6039]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-427-812]
Calcium Aluminate Flux From France; 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 from one respondent, Lafarge
Aluminates (LA), and its U.S. subsidiary, Lafarge Calcium Aluminates,
Inc. (LCA) (collectively, Lafarge), the Department of Commerce (the
Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on calcium aluminate (CA) flux from France. This review
covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the
United States, Lafarge, for the period June 1, 1995 through May 31,
1996.
We have preliminarily determined that U.S. sales have been made
below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in
our final results of administrative review, we will instruct the U.S.
Customs Service (Customs) to assess antidumping duties equal to the
differences between the United States Price (USP) and NV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested
to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issues, and (2) a
brief summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 11, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maureen McPhillips or Linda Ludwig,
AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-
3019.
The Applicable Statute
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 (the Act) by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 13, 1994, the Department published in the Federal Register
(59 FR 30337) the antidumping duty order on CA flux from France. On
June 6, 1996 (61 FR 28840), the Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on CA flux from France. In accordance with
19 CFR 353.22(a)(1)(1995), we received a timely request for review from
a respondent, Lafarge. We published a notice of initiation of this
antidumping duty administrative review on August 8, 1996 (61 FR 41373),
for the period June 1, 1995 through May 31, 1996.
The Department is now conducting this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Act.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of CA flux, other than
white, high purity CA flux. This product contains by weight more than
32 percent but less than 65 percent alumina and more than one percent
each of iron and silica.
CA flux is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2523.10.0000. The
HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and U.S. Customs' purposes
only. The written description of the scope of this order remains
dispositive.
Constructed Export Price
In calculating Lafarge's USP, the Department treated respondent's
sales as constructed export price (CEP) sales, as defined in section
772(b) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to the
first unaffiliated purchaser after importation into the United States.
We calculated CEP based on packed or bulk, ex-U.S. warehouse or
delivered prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States. We
made deductions from the gross unit price, where appropriate, for the
following movement charges: loading material at the Fos plant in
France, foreign inland freight from plant to port, foreign brokerage
and handling costs, international freight, marine insurance, U.S.
brokerage and handling, inland freight from port to U.S. warehouse,
unloading charges, inland freight to processors, demurrage and stop-off
charges, and U.S. freight from the warehouse to the customer, in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Pursuant to section
772(d)(1)(B), we also deducted credit expenses, product liability
insurance, and travel expenses for technical services. Pursuant to
section 772(d)(1)(D), we deducted U.S. indirect selling expenses, and
inventory carrying costs incurred in the United States. We did not
deduct indirect selling expenses (i.e., administrative expenses,
inventory carrying costs, personnel costs for technicians) incurred by
LA in France because these expenses were for commercial activity taking
place outside the United States. We also deducted commissions in
accordance with section 772(d)(1)(A) of the Act.
We also deducted an amount for profit in accordance with section
772 (d)(3) of the Act.
[[Page 11151]]
Level of Trade and CEP Offset
As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, at 829-831, the Department will, to the extent
practicable, calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade as
the U.S. sales. When the Department is unable to find sales of the
foreign like product in the comparison market at the same level of
trade as the U.S. sale, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to
sales at a different level of trade in the comparison market.
In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, if sales at
different levels of trade are compared, the Department will adjust the
NV to account for the difference in levels of trade if two conditions
are met. First, there must be differences between the actual selling
activities performed by the exporter at the level of trade of the U.S.
sale and at the level of trade of the comparison market sale used to
determine NV. Second, the differences must affect price comparability
as evidenced by a pattern of consistent price differences between sales
at the different levels of trade in the market in which NV is
determined.
Section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act establishes that a CEP ``offset''
may be made when two conditions exist: First, NV is established at a
level of trade which constitutes a more advanced stage of distribution
than the level of trade of the CEP; and second, the data available do
not provide an appropriate basis for a level-of-trade adjustment.
To implement these principles in this case, we requested
information on the selling activities of Lafarge in each of its
markets. We asked Lafarge to establish any claimed levels of trade
based on the selling activities provided to each proposed customer
group, and to document and explain any claims for a level-of-trade
adjustment. In its October 11, 1996 submission, and subsequent
supplemental response of February 5, 1996, Lafarge explained that LA,
acting as the national distributor in France for Lafarge's CA flux
products, sold to distributors and end users in the home market.
Lafarge's U.S. CEP sales were made through its subsidiary, LCA, which
performed the same basic role in the United States that LA performed in
the home market, selling to distributors and end users. For both
channels of distribution the selling activities in both the home market
and the United States were similar.
To determine whether separate levels of trade existed in the United
States and the home market, we reviewed the selling activities
associated with each channel of distribution claimed by Lafarge. Since
all of Lafarge's U.S. sales were CEP sales, we considered only the
selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of
expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act.
In the home market Lafarge reported two customer groups: end-users
and distributors. We reviewed the sales activities between these two
types of customers in the home market. There were no significant
distinctions in the selling activities performed for end-users and
distributors in the home market. The distribution systems, inventory
maintenance, sales order processing, and sales agreements were very
similar across customer groups in each market. Because channels of
distribution do not qualify as separate levels of trade when the
selling activities performed for each customer class are sufficiently
similar, we concluded that Lafarge's home market sales to end-users and
resellers were made at the same level of trade since the aggregate
selling activities performed for both channels of distribution were
essentially identical.
We then examined the level of trade of the CEP sales in the U.S.
market (i.e., the level of trade for sales from LA to LCA). Based on
Lafarge's responses to the Department's questionnaires, we concluded
that the selling activities of the level of trade of the home market
sales were sufficiently different from the level of trade of Lafarge's
CEP sales to establish a different level of trade between the two
markets. For example, the level of trade of the CEP sales did not
involve extensive technical assistance, credit insurance, inventory
maintenance, and sales administration costs. Since the same level of
trade as that of the CEP did not exist in the home market, we could not
determine whether there was a pattern of consistent price differences
between the levels of trade, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of
the Act, based on Lafarge's home market sales of merchandise under
review. Further, we do not have the information which would allow us to
examine pricing patterns of Lafarge's sales of other products, and
there is no other respondent's or other producer's information on the
record to analyze whether the adjustment is appropriate. See SAA at
830.
Because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for
making a level-of-trade adjustment, but the level of trade in the home
market is at a more advanced stage than the level of trade of the CEP
sales, a CEP offset is appropriate in accordance with section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. To calculate the CEP offset, we deducted from
NV the general and administrative expenses, inventory carrying costs,
and salaries and overhead expenses associated with technical service
reported by Lafarge as home market indirect selling expenses. We
limited the home market indirect selling expense deduction by the
amount of the indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States
as determined under section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.
Further Manufacture
In calculating CEP, where appropriate, we deducted all value added
in the United States, including the proportional amount of profit
attributable to the value added, pursuant to section 772(d)(2) and
772(d)(3) of the Act. The value added consists of the costs associated
with the production of the further manufactured products, other than
costs associated with the imported products. To determine the costs
incurred to produce the further manufactured products, we included (1)
the costs of manufacture, (2) movement and repacking expenses, (3)
selling, general and administrative expenses, and interest expenses.
Profit was calculated by deducting all applicable costs, charges,
adjustments, and expenses from the sales price. The total profit was
then allocated proportionally to all components of cost. We deducted
only the profit attributable to the value added in the United States.
No other adjustments to CEP were claimed or allowed.
Normal Value (NV)
A. Viability
Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and
U.S. sales, and absent any information that a particular market
situation in the exporting country does not permit a proper comparison,
we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product sold in the
exporting country by Lafarge was sufficient to permit a proper
comparison with Lafarge's sales of the subject merchandise to the
United States, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act.
Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i), we based NV on
the prices at which the foreign like products were sold to the first
unaffiliated purchaser for consumption in the exporting country.
B. Model Match
In accordance with section 771(16)(B) of the Act, we considered all
products produced by the respondent, covered by
[[Page 11152]]
the description in the Scope of the Review section above, and sold in
the home market during the POR, to be foreign like products for
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales.
Since there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market
to compare to U.S. sales, we matched U.S. sales to the most similar
foreign like product based on the physical characteristics reported by
the respondent, Lafarge. Among similar products sold in the home market
we chose that product with the least difference in size (i.e., the type
of crushing and screening performed) and packaging between the home
market and the U.S. product. In any case, we did not use any home
market product which, when compared to the U.S. model, resulted in a
difference-in-merchandise adjustment in excess of 20 percent of the
total cost of manufacture of the U.S. model.
C. Price to Price Comparisons
Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the CEPs of
individual transactions to the monthly weighted-average price of sales
of the foreign like product.
We based NV on the price at which the foreign like product is sold
for consumption in the exporting country to the first unaffiliated
party, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of
trade in accordance with sections 773(a)(1)(B)(i) and 773(a)(5) of the
Act. Where appropriate, we deducted loading expenses, inland freight,
credit, credit insurance, travel expenses incurred by technicians,
product liability insurance, and packing. We deducted indirect selling
expenses incurred in the home market up to the amount of the U.S.
indirect selling expenses. We also made adjustments for home market
indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions. Prices were
reported net of value-added taxes (VAT) and, therefore, no adjustment
for VAT was necessary. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margin exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Period of review (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lafarge Aluminates...................... 06/01/95-05/31/96 7.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the
first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in
the case briefs and comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after
the date of publication. Parties who submit arguments in this
proceeding are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of
the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. The Department will
issue the final results of this administrative review, including the
results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments.
The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences
between CEP and NV may vary from the percentage stated above. The
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs.
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment
of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the
determination and for future deposits of estimated duties.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon the publication of the final results of this administrative review
for all shipments of CA flux from France 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 Lafarge will be
the rate established in the final results of this administrative
review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not
covered in these reviews but covered in the original less-than-fair-
value (LTFV) investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will
continue to be the most recent rate published in the final
determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter
received a company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this 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)
for all other producers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the cash
deposit rate will be 37.93 percent, the rate established in the LTFV
investigation (59 FR 5994, February 9, 1994).
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 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
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.
Dated: March 3, 1997.
Robert. S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-6039 Filed 3-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
