[Federal Register: June 24, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 121)]
[Notices]
[Page 35293-35296]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24jn04-29]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-838]
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Carbazole Violet Pigment
23 From India
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postponement of Final Determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: June 24, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Riggle at (202) 482-0650, AD/
CVD Enforcement Office 5, Group II, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preliminary Determination
We preliminarily determine that carbazole violet pigment 23 (CVP-
23) from India is being sold, or is likely to be sold, in the United
States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margin of
sales at LTFV is shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of
this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this
preliminary determination.
Case History
This investigation was initiated on December 11, 2003.\1\ See
Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Carbazole
Violet Pigment 23 from India and the People's Republic of China, 68 FR
70761 (December 19, 2003) (Initiation Notice). Since the initiation of
the investigation, the following events have occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioners in this investigation are Sun Chemical
Corporation and Nation Ford Chemical Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) set aside a period
for all interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage.
See Initiation Notice, 68 FR at 70762. We received no comments.
On January 5, 2004, the United States International Trade
Commission (ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable
indication that the domestic industry producing CVP-23 is materially
injured by reason of imports from India. See Determinations and Views
of the Commission, USITC Publication No. 3662 (January 2004); see also
Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from China and India, 69 FR 2002 (January
13, 2004).
Selection of Respondents
Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the
subject merchandise. Where it is not practicable to examine all known
producer/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the
Act permits us to investigate either (1) a sample of exporters,
producers, or types of products that is statistically valid, based on
the information available at the time of selection, or (2) exporters
and producers accounting for the largest volume of the subject
merchandise that can reasonably be examined.
In their petition, the petitioners identified 12 producers of CVP-
23 in India. We examined company-specific export data obtained from
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which indicated that only
four companies exported the subject merchandise to the United States
during the period of investigation (POI). Due to resource constraints,
we selected the two largest companies, Alpanil Industries Ltd.
(Alpanil) and Pidilite Industries Ltd. (Pidilite), as respondents. For
a more detailed discussion of respondent selection in this
investigation, see the January 9, 2004, Respondent Selection Memorandum
from David Layton and Monica Gallardo, International Trade Compliance
Analysts, to Gary Taverman, Director, Office 5, on file in the Central
Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Commerce building.
On January 15, 2004, the Department issued the complete antidumping
questionnaire to Alpanil and Pidilite.\2\ We received responses to
sections A-C of the antidumping questionnaire from both companies and
issued supplementary questionnaires where appropriate.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices,
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B
requests a complete listing of all home market sales or, if the home
market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country
market (this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market
economy (NME) cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S.
sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production
(COP) of the foreign like product and the constructed value (CV) of
the merchandise under investigation. Section E requests information
on further manufacturing.
\3\ Neither respondent was required to respond to section D of
the questionnaire because an allegation of sales below cost had not
been made. Section E of the questionnaire was not applicable to
either respondent as neither had sales of further-manufactured
merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postponement of Final Determination
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 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 petitioners. 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 an extension of the
provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six
months. On May 26, 2004, Alpanil and Pidilite requested that, in the
event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this
investigation, the Department postpone its final determination until
135 days after the publication of the preliminary determination.
Alpanil and Pidilite also included a request to extend the provisional
measures from a four-month period to not more than six-months.
[[Page 35294]]
Accordingly, because we have made an affirmative preliminary
determination, and the requesting parties account for a significant
proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, we have postponed the
final determination until not later than 135 days after the date of the
publication of the preliminary determination.
Period of Investigation
The POI is October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003. This period
corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month
of filing of the petition (i.e., November 2003). See 19 CFR
351.204(b)(1).
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation is carbazole violet
23 identified as Color Index No. 51319 and Chemical Abstract No. 6358-
30-1, with the chemical name of diindolo [3,2-b:3',2'-
m]triphenodioxazine, 8,18-dichloro-5, 15-diethy-5,15-dihydro-, and
molecular formula of
C34H22Cl2N4O2.\4\
The subject merchandise includes the crude pigment in any form (e.g.,
dry powder, paste, wet cake) and finished pigment in the form of
presscake and dry color. Pigment dispersions in any form (e.g. pigments
dispersed in oleoresins, flammable solvents, water) are not included
within the scope of the investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Please note that the bracketed section of the product
description, [3,2-b:3',2'-m], is not business proprietary
information. In this case, the brackets are simply part of the
chemical nomenclature. See December 4, 2003, amendment to petition
at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The merchandise subject to this investigation is classifiable under
subheading 3204.17.9040 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
Product Comparisons
We compared the export price (EP) to the normal value (NV), as
described in the Export Price and Normal Value sections of this notice.
We first attempted to compare products sold in the U.S. and home
markets that were identical with respect to the following
characteristics: form, stability, dispersion, and tone. Where there was
not an identical comparison, we compared the products sold to the
United States with the most similar merchandise sold in the home market
based on the characteristics listed above, in that order of priority.
Export Price
For the price to the United States, we used EP as defined in
section 772(a) of the Act. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be
sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the
subject merchandise outside the United States to an unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for
exportation to the United States.
For both respondents, we calculated EP based on the packed prices
charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States because
the merchandise was sold directly by both Alpanil and Pidilite outside
the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States prior to importation, and constructed export price was not
otherwise indicated. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act,
we calculated the EP by deducting movement expenses from the starting
price, where appropriate. We determined the EP for each company as
follows:
Alpanil
We calculated EP based on the packed FOB or CIF price, as
appropriate, to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions
from the starting price for foreign movement expenses (including inland
freight, brokerage and handling, international freight, and marine
insurance). See Analysis Memorandum for Alpanil Industries Ltd., dated
June 18, 2004.
Pidilite
We calculated EP based on the packed FOB or CIF price, as
appropriate, to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions
from the starting price for foreign movement expenses (including inland
freight, brokerage and handling, international freight, and marine
insurance). See Analysis Memorandum for Pidilite Industries Ltd., dated
June 18, 2004.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Markets
Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price
at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided
that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if
quantity is inappropriate), that the time of the sales reasonably
corresponds to the time of the sale used to determine EP or CEP, and
that there is no particular market situation that prevents a proper
comparison with the EP or CEP. According to the statute, quantities (or
value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less than
five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the
subject merchandise to the United States.
We found that both Alpanil and Pidilite had viable home markets for
CVP-23. As such, the respondents each submitted home market sales data
for purposes of the calculation of NV. In deriving NV, we made
adjustments as detailed in the Calculation of Normal Value Based on
Home Market Prices section below.
B. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices
We determined price-based NVs for the respondent companies as
follows. For both respondents we made adjustments to the home market
net price for any differences in packing and deducted home market
movement expenses pursuant to sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for
differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act by deducting direct selling expenses
incurred for home market sales and adding U.S. direct selling expenses.
Alpanil
We based home market prices on the packed, delivered or FOB prices,
as appropriate, to unaffiliated purchasers in India. We deducted from
the starting price billing adjustments, as reported by Alpanil. We
adjusted for foreign inland freight. We made COS adjustments by
deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales
(credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit
expenses).
Pidilite
We based home market prices on the packed, delivered or FOB prices,
as appropriate, to unaffiliated purchasers in India. We adjusted for
foreign inland freight and warehousing. We made COS adjustments by
deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales
(credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit
expenses).
C. 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 as the EP or CEP
[[Page 35295]]
transaction. The NV level of trade 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 SG&A expenses and profit. For EP sales, the U.S.
level of trade is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is
usually from exporter to importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade
than EP or CEP transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process
and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the
producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales
are at a different level of trade 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 level of trade of the export transaction, we make a
level of trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
In implementing these principles in this investigation, we obtained
information from Alpanil and Pidilite about the marketing stages
involved in the reported U.S. and home market sales, including a
description of the selling activities performed by the respondents for
each channel of distribution. In identifying levels of trade for home
market sales we considered the selling functions reflected in the
starting price before any adjustments.
In conducting our level of trade analyses, we examined the specific
types of customers, the channels of distribution, and the selling
practices of each respondent. Generally, if the reported levels of
trade are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should
be similar. Conversely, if a party reports levels of trade that are
different for different categories of sales, the functions and
activities should be dissimilar. We found the following.
Alpanil
For home market sales Alpanil reported two customer categories--end
users and distributors. Alpanil reported that these customer categories
constitute distinct levels of trade, and that prices to end users are
generally higher than those to distributors because Alpanil performs
additional selling functions in making sales to end user customers.
We have preliminarily determined that Apanil has two levels of
trade in the home market. For sales to the end user customer category,
Alpanil reported that it performs additional selling functions,
including advertising, sales promotion, technical assistance and after
sales service, none of which it performed for home market sales to
distributors.
Alpanil has reported one channel of distribution for sales to the
United States, direct sales from the factory to U.S. distributors. We
preliminarily determine that Alpanil's EP sales to the United States
were made at a single level of trade, and that this level of trade was
equivalent to the home market level of trade of Alpanil's sales to
distributors.
Pidilite
Pidilite has reported two channels of distribution in the home
market and one channel of distribution in the U.S. market. Pidilite
defined these channels of distribution based on customer category:
Distributors and end users in the home market and solely distributors
in the U.S. market.
However, Pidilite has not established that the two channels of
distribution in the home market constitute more than one level of
trade. There are inconsistencies between the information regarding
selling functions provided in Pidilite's supplemental response and that
in its original submission. For purposes of this preliminary
determination, we have concluded that there is insufficient information
on the record to establish more than one level of trade in the home
market. Furthermore, we have determined that Pidilite's EP sales to the
United States were made at a single level of trade and, for lack of
unambiguous and consistent information indicating the contrary, that
these sales were made at a level of trade equivalent to that of the
home market sales.
Currency Conversions
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with
section 773A of the Act based on exchange rates in effect on the dates
of the U.S. sale, as obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank (the
Department's preferred source for exchange rates).
Verification
In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify
all information relied upon in making our final determination.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing
the CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of CVP-23 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 are also instructing the CBP to require a cash deposit or the
posting of a bond equal to the dumping margins indicated in the chart
below, adjusted for export subsidies found in the preliminary
determination of the companion countervailing duty investigation.
Specifically, consistent with our longstanding practice, where the
product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent
countervailing duty investigation, we instruct the CBP to require a
cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the amount by which the
normal value exceeds the EP, as indicated below, less the amount of the
countervailing duty determined to constitute an export subsidy.
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., 17.91 percent for Alpanil,
17.93 percent for Pidilite, and 17.92 for ``All Others''). After the
adjustment for the cash deposit rates attributed to export subsidies,
the resulting cash deposit rates will be 9.70 percent for Alpanil,
47.68 percent for Pidilite, and 27.14 percent for ``All Others.'' These
instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further
notice.
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Producer/Exporter margin
(percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alpanil Industries Ltd.................................. 27.61
Pidilite Industries Ltd................................. 66.69
All Others.............................................. 45.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose
to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of
this notice the calculations performed in the preliminary
determination.
International Trade Commission Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination. If the
final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, the ITC will
determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this
preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination
whether imports of CVP-23 from India are materially injuring, or
threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
Public Comment
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
[[Page 35296]]
determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs on the later
of 50 days after the date of publication of this notice or one week
after the issuance of the verification reports. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to
the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days
after the deadline 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. Further, we request that parties submitting
briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a copy of the
public version of such briefs on diskette.
In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public
hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to
comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request
for a hearing is made, we will tentatively hold the hearing two days
after the deadline for submission of rebuttal briefs 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. 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 must submit a
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the date of
publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's
name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants;
and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, oral
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. See 19
CFR 351.310(c). The Department will make its final determination no
later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary
determination.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 18, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-14363 Filed 6-23-04; 8:45 am]