[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 90 (Monday, May 11, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25828-25830]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12315]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-427-009]


Industrial Nitrocellulose 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 by the petitioner, Hercules 
Incorporated, the Department of Commerce is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on industrial 
nitrocellulose from France. The review covers Bergerac, N.C. (formerly 
identified by the name of its parent company, Societe Nationale des 
Poudres et Explosifs), and its affiliates for the period August 1, 
1996, through July 31, 1997.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales for Bergerac, N.C., 
have been made below normal value. If these preliminary results are 
adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct 
U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the

[[Page 25829]]

issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Zapf, Lyn Johnson, or David 
Dirstine, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (62 FR 27295).

Background

    On August 10, 1983, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register (48 FR 36303) the antidumping duty 
order on industrial nitrocellulose (INC) from France. On September 25, 
1997, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c), we published a notice of 
initiation of administrative review of this order for the period August 
1, 1996, through July 31, 1997 (the POR) (62 FR 50292). The Department 
is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 
of the Act.

Scope of Review

    The product covered by this review is INC containing between 10.8 
and 12.2 percent nitrogen. INC is a dry, white, amorphous synthetic 
chemical produced by the action of nitric acid on cellulose. The 
product comes in several viscosities and is used to form films in 
lacquers, coatings, furniture finishes and printing inks. Imports of 
this product are classified under the HTS subheadings 3912.20.00 and 
3912.90.00. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes. The written descriptions of the scope of this 
proceeding remain dispositive.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used export price (EP) or 
constructed export price (CEP) as defined in sections 772(a) and (b) of 
the Act, as appropriate. We calculated EP and CEP based on the packed 
f.o.b., c.i.f., or delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or 
for exportation to, the United States. We made deductions, as 
appropriate, for rebates. We also made deductions for any movement 
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the Statement 
of Administrative Action (SAA) (at 823-824) to the URAA, we calculated 
the CEP by deducting selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States, including commissions, 
direct selling expenses, and indirect selling expenses in the United 
States. For sales without payment dates, we calculated credit expenses 
using the date of the supplemental response. Finally, we made an 
adjustment to CEP for profit allocated to these expenses in accordance 
with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
    With respect to subject merchandise to which value was added in the 
United States prior to sale to unaffiliated U.S. customers, we 
determined that the special rule for merchandise with value added after 
importation under section 772(e) of the Act applied. Section 772(e) of 
the Act provides that, where the subject merchandise is imported by a 
person affiliated with the producer or exporter and the value added in 
the United States by the affiliated person is likely to exceed 
substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we shall determine 
the CEP for such merchandise using the price of identical or other 
subject merchandise if there is a sufficient quantity of sales to 
provide a reasonable basis for comparison and we determine that the use 
of such sales is appropriate. If there is not a sufficient quantity of 
such sales or if we determine that using the price of identical or 
other subject merchandise is not appropriate, we may use any other 
reasonable basis to determine the CEP.
    To determine whether the value added is likely to exceed 
substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we estimated the 
value added based on the difference between the averages of the prices 
charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser for the merchandise as sold 
in the United States and the averages of the prices paid for the 
subject merchandise by the affiliated person. Based on this analysis, 
we determined that the estimated value added in the United States 
accounted for at least 65 percent of the price charged to the first 
unaffiliated customer for the merchandise as sold in the United States. 
Therefore, we determined that the value added is likely to exceed 
substantially the value of the subject merchandise. Also, we determined 
that there was a sufficient quantity of sales remaining to provide a 
reasonable basis for comparison and that the use of such sales is 
appropriate. Accordingly, for purposes of determining dumping margins 
for these sales, we have used the weighted-average dumping margins 
calculated on sales of identical or other subject merchandise sold to 
unaffiliated persons. No other adjustments to EP or CEP were claimed or 
allowed.

Normal Value

    In calculating normal value (NV), we determined that the quantity 
of foreign like product sold by the respondent in the exporting country 
was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the 
subject merchandise to the United States pursuant to section 773(a)(1) 
of the Act because the quantity of sales in the home market was greater 
than five percent of the sales to the U.S. market. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the 
prices at which the foreign like products were first sold for 
consumption in the exporting country.
    We used sales to affiliated customers only where we determined such 
sales were made at arm's-length prices, i.e., at prices comparable to 
prices at which the firm sold identical merchandise to unrelated 
customers.
    We calculated monthly, weighted-average NVs. Where possible, we 
compared U.S. sales to sales of identical merchandise in France. When 
identical merchandise was not sold during the relevant contemporaneous 
period, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign 
like product in accordance with sections 771(16)(B) and (C) of the Act.

(See the Matching Methodology section of our analysis memorandum to the 
file, dated April 17, 1998.)
    Home-market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory or 
delivered prices to the affiliated and unaffiliated purchasers in the 
home market. We made deductions, where appropriate, for discounts, 
rebates, price adjustments and home market movement charges. Where 
applicable, we made adjustments for differences in packing and for 
movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of 
the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable 
to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant 
to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and for differences in 
circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56. For comparison to EP, 
we made COS adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling 
expenses from and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to NV. For 
comparisons to CEP, we made COS adjustments by deducting home-

[[Page 25830]]

market direct selling expenses from NV. We also made adjustments, where 
applicable, for home-market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. 
commissions in CEP calculations.

Level of Trade

    To the extent practicable, we determine NV for sales at the same 
level of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP or CEP). When there are no 
sales at the same level of trade, we compare U.S. sales to home-market 
sales at a different level of trade. The NV level of trade is that of 
the starting-price sales in the home market.
    To determine whether home-market sales were at a different level of 
trade than U.S. sales for this review, we examined stages in the 
marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution 
between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. Based on the record 
evidence, we found that there were significant differences between the 
selling activities associated with the home-market level of trade and 
those associated with both EP and CEP. Therefore, we determined that EP 
and CEP sales are at a different level of trade than the home-market 
sales. Consequently, we could not match U.S. sales to sales at the same 
level of trade in the home market. Moreover, data necessary to 
determine a level-of-trade adjustment was not available. Therefore, 
when we matched EP sales to sales in the home market, we made no level-
of-trade adjustment. However, because home-market sales were made at a 
more advanced stage of distribution than that of the CEP level, we made 
a CEP-offset adjustment when comparing CEP and home-market sales, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. For a more detailed 
description of our analysis, see the Level-of-Trade section of our 
analysis memorandum dated April 17, 1998.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-
average dumping margin for the period August 1, 1996, through July 31, 
1997 to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                          Company                             (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bergerac, N.C..............................................         9.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. A hearing, if requested, will be 
held 2 days after submission of rebuttal briefs at the main Commerce 
Department building.
    Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in 
briefs and rebuttal briefs. Briefs from interested parties may be filed 
no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs, 
limited to the issues raised in case briefs, may be filed no later than 
five days after the deadline for filing case briefs.
    Parties who submit 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.
    The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any such written briefs or hearing. The Department will issue 
final results of this review within 120 days of publication of these 
preliminary results.
    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because the 
inability to link sales with specific entries prevents calculation of 
duties on an entry-by-entry basis, we have calculated importer-specific 
ad valorem duty-assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount 
of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the 
POR to the total customs value of the sales used to calculate those 
duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of that 
particular importer made during the POR. (This is equivalent to 
dividing the total amount of antidumping duties, which are calculated 
by taking the difference between statutory NV and statutory EP or CEP, 
by the total statutory EP or CEP value of the sales compared and 
adjusting the result by the average difference between EP or CEP and 
customs value for all merchandise examined during the POR.) Bergerac, 
N.C., could not identify the importer of record for certain sales to 
unaffiliated customers. Therefore, we have calculated a single, per-
unit duty assessment rate by dividing the total dumping margins by the 
total quantity sold for these importers.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rates for Bergerac, N.C., 
will be the rate established in the final results of this review 
(except that no deposit will be required if the firm has a zero or de 
minimis margin, i.e., a margin less than 0.5 percent); (2) for 
previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the 
cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-
value investigation (LTFV), 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 be 1.38. This is the ``all 
others'' rate from the LTFV investigation which we are reinstating in 
accordance with the decisions by the Court of International Trade in 
Floral Trade Council v. United States, Slip Op. 93-79 (May 25, 1993), 
and Federal-Mogul Corporation and The Torrington Company v. United 
States, Slip Op. 93-83 (May 25, 1993). These cash-deposit rates, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results 
of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

    Dated: May 4, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-12315 Filed 5-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P