[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47632-47636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-23031]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-802]


Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results and rescission in part of 
antidumping duty administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on gray portland cement and clinker from Mexico. 
The review covers exports of subject merchandise to the United States 
during the period August 1, 1999, through July 31, 2000, and one firm, 
CEMEX, S.A. de C.V., and its affiliate, GCC Cemento, S.A. de C.V. We 
have preliminarily determined that, during the period of review, sales 
were made below normal value.
    We invite interested parties 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: September 13, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Davina Hashmi or Mark Ross, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone (202) 482-5760, (202) 482-4794, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, 
all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) 
regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (April 2001).

Background

    On August 16, 2000, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review 
concerning the antidumping duty order on gray portland cement and 
clinker from Mexico (65 FR 49962). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, 
the petitioner, the Southern Tier Cement Committee (STCC), requested a 
review of CEMEX, S.A. de C.V. (CEMEX), CEMEX's affiliate, GCC Cemento, 
S.A. de C.V. (GCCC), and Apasco, S.A. de C.V. (Apasco). In addition, 
CEMEX and GCCC requested reviews of their own entries. On September 26, 
2000, we published a Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews (65 FR 58733) initiating 
this review. The period of review is August 1, 1999, through July 31, 
2000. We determined that Apasco did not have any sales or shipments of 
subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review. 
Our review of Customs import data indicated that there were no entries 
of subject merchandise made by Apasco during the period of review. See 
Memorandum from Analyst to the File, dated March 27, 2001. Therefore, 
we are rescinding this review with respect to this manufacturer/
exporter. We are now conducting a review of CEMEX and GCCC pursuant to 
section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

    The products covered by this review include gray portland cement 
and clinker. Gray portland cement is a hydraulic cement and the primary 
component of concrete. Clinker, an intermediate material product 
produced when manufacturing cement, has no use other than of being 
ground into finished cement. Gray portland cement is currently 
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number 2523.29 
and cement clinker is currently classifiable under HTS item number 
2523.10. Gray portland cement has also been entered under HTS item 
number 2523.90 as ``other hydraulic cements.'' The HTS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes only. Our written 
description of the scope of the proceeding is dispositive.

[[Page 47633]]

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified sales 
information provided by CEMEX using standard verification procedures, 
including an examination of relevant sales and financial records, and 
selection of original documentation containing relevant information. 
Our verification results are outlined in public versions of the 
verification reports.

Collapsing

    Section 771(33) of the Act defines when two or more parties will be 
considered affiliated for purposes of an antidumping analysis. 
Moreover, 19 CFR 351.401(f) describes when we will treat two or more 
affiliated producers as a single entity (i.e., ``collapse'' the firms) 
for purposes of calculating a dumping margin. In the five previous 
administrative reviews of this order, we analyzed and determined to 
collapse CEMEX and GCCC in accordance with our regulations. See, e.g., 
Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 14889 (March 14, 2001), 
and accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 12.
    The regulations state that we will treat two or more affiliated 
producers as a single entity where those producers have production 
facilities for similar or identical products that would not require 
substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure 
manufacturing priorities and we conclude that there is a significant 
potential for the manipulation of price or production. In identifying a 
significant potential for the manipulation of price or production, the 
factors we may consider include the following: (i) The level of common 
ownership; (ii) the extent to which managerial employees or board 
members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an affiliated 
firm; (iii) whether operations are intertwined, such as through the 
sharing of sales information, involvement in production and pricing 
decisions, the sharing of facilities or employees, or significant 
transactions between the affiliated producers. See 19 CFR 351.401(f).
    Having reviewed the current record, we find that the factual 
information underlying our decision to collapse these two entities has 
not changed from previous administrative reviews. CEMEX's indirect 
ownership of GCCC exceeds five percent, such that these two companies 
are affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act. In addition, 
both CEMEX and GCCC satisfy the criteria for treatment of affiliated 
parties as a single entity described at 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1); both 
producers have production facilities for similar and identical products 
such that substantial retooling of their production facilities would 
not be necessary to restructure manufacturing priorities. Consequently, 
any minor retooling required could be accomplished swiftly and with 
relative ease.
    We also find that there exists a significant potential for 
manipulation of prices and production as outlined under 19 CFR 
351.401(f)(2). CEMEX indirectly owns a substantial percentage of GCCC. 
Also, CEMEX's managers or directors sit on the board of directors of 
GCCC and its affiliated companies. Accordingly, the percentage of 
ownership and interlocking boards of directors give rise to a 
significant potential for affecting GCCC's pricing and production 
decisions. See the Department's memorandum from Analyst to File, 
Collapsing CEMEX, S.A. and GCC Cemento, S.A. de C.V. for the Current 
Administrative Review, dated March 8, 2001 \1\. Therefore, we have 
collapsed CEMEX and GCCC into one entity and calculated a single 
weighted-average margin using information provided by CEMEX and GCCC in 
this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Our decision to collapse both companies and treat them as a 
single entity is consistent with our decisions in earlier segments 
of this proceeding. See the Department's memoranda from Roland L. 
MacDonald to Joseph A. Spetrini pertaining to the 95/96 and 96/97 
administrative reviews, dated August 20, 1998, and August 31, 1998, 
respectively. See, also the Department's memoranda from Analyst to 
File, Collapsing CEMEX, S.A. and GCC Cemento, S.A. de C.V. for the 
Current Administrative Review pertaining to the 97/98 and 98/99 
administrative reviews, dated April 6, 1999, and July 28, 2000, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    GCCC reported both constructed export price (CEP) and export price 
(EP) sales. On September 12, 2000, the Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit (CAFC) ruled in AK Steel Corp. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1361, 
1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (AK Steel), that, ``* * * if the contract for 
sale was between a U.S. affiliate of a producer or exporter and an 
unaffiliated U.S. purchaser, then the sale must be classified as a CEP 
sale.'' Having examined information on the record in this review we 
determined that GCCC's affiliated entity in the United States, Rio 
Grande Portland Cement Corporation (RGPCC), receives consideration for 
the subject merchandise that GCCC ships to its U.S. customers. We base 
this conclusion on the fact that the ordering, invoicing, and payment 
processes all take place between the unaffiliated U.S. customers and 
RGPCC. Therefore, in accordance with the CAFC's decision in AK Steel, 
we treated GCCC's reported EP sales as CEP sales. For further 
discussion, see the Preliminary Analysis Memorandum from Davina Hashmi 
to The File, dated August 30, 2001.
    CEMEX reported CEP sales. For these sales transactions, we used CEP 
in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act for those sales to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser that took place after importation into the 
United States.
    For both CEMEX and GCCC, we calculated CEP based on delivered 
prices to unaffiliated customers. Where appropriate, we made 
adjustments to the starting price for discounts and billing adjustments 
to the invoice price. In accordance with section 772(d) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.402(b), we deducted those selling expenses, including 
inventory carrying costs, that were associated with commercial 
activities in the United States and relate to the sale to an 
unaffiliated purchaser. We also made deductions for foreign brokerage 
and handling, foreign inland freight, U.S. inland freight and 
insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. duties, pursuant to 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Finally, we made an adjustment for CEP 
profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. No other 
adjustments to EP or CEP were claimed or allowed.
    With respect to subject merchandise to which value was added in the 
United States prior to sale to unaffiliated U.S. customers (i.e., 
cement that was imported and further-processed into finished concrete 
by U.S. affiliates of foreign exporters), we preliminarily determine 
that the special rule under section 772(e) of the Act for merchandise 
with value added after importation is applicable.
    Section 772(e) of the Act provides that, where the subject 
merchandise is imported by a person affiliated with the exporter or 
producer 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. 
Section 351.402(c)(2) of the regulations provides that normally we will 
determine that the value added in the United States by the affiliated 
person is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject 
merchandise if we estimate the value added to be at least 65 percent of 
the price charged to the

[[Page 47634]]

first unaffiliated purchaser for the merchandise as sold in the United 
States. Normally we will estimate the value added based on the 
difference between the price charged to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser for the merchandise as sold in the United States and the 
price paid for the subject merchandise by the affiliated person. We 
will base this determination normally on averages of the prices and the 
value added to the subject merchandise. 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. See section 772(e) of 
the Act.
    During the course of this administrative review, the respondent 
submitted information which allowed us to determine whether, in 
accordance with section 772(e) of the Act, the value added in the 
United States by its U.S. affiliates is likely to exceed substantially 
the value of the subject merchandise. 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 subject merchandise by the affiliated 
person. Based on this analysis, we estimate that the value added was at 
least 65 percent of the price the respondent charged to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser for the merchandise as sold in the United 
States. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the value added is 
likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise. 
Also, the record indicates that there is a sufficient quantity of 
subject merchandise to provide a reasonable and appropriate basis for 
comparison. Accordingly, for purposes of determining dumping margins 
for the further-manufactured sales, we have assigned the respective 
preliminary weighted-average margin reflecting the rate calculated for 
sales of identical or other subject merchandise sold to unaffiliated 
purchasers.

Normal Value

A. Comparisons

    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 (NV), 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 section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. 
Since the respondent's aggregate volume of home-market sales of the 
foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that 
the home market was viable. Therefore, we have based NV on home-market 
sales.
    During the period of review, the respondent sold Type II LA and 
Type V LA cement in the United States. The statute expresses a 
preference for matching U.S. sales to identical merchandise in the home 
market. The respondent sold cement produced as Type I, II LA, Type III, 
Type V, Type V LA, CPC 30 R, CPC 40, and CPO 40 cement in the home 
market. We have attempted to match the subject merchandise to identical 
merchandise in the home market. In situations where identical product 
types cannot be matched, we have attempted to match the subject 
merchandise to sales of similar merchandise in the home market. See 
sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 771(16) of the Act.
    We have preliminarily determined that Type V LA, Type V, and Type 
III cement sales were made outside the ordinary course of trade. For 
further discussion concerning our ordinary-course-of-trade 
determination, see the ``Ordinary Course of Trade'' section in the 
decision memorandum from Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, to Richard 
Moreland, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, dated 
August 30, 2001. Notwithstanding this fact, we found identical models 
upon which to base NV. We determined that CPO 40 cement produced and 
sold in the home market is the identical match to Type V LA cement sold 
in the United States during this review period. We also determined that 
Type II LA cement produced and sold in Mexico is the identical match to 
Type II LA cement sold in the United States during this review period. 
If we could not find an identical match to the cement types sold in the 
United States in the same month in which the U.S. sale was made or 
during the contemporaneous period, we based NV on similar merchandise. 
For further discussion of model matching, see the ``Model Matching'' 
section in the decision memorandum from Laurie Parkhill, Office 
Director, to Richard Moreland, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import 
Administration, dated August 30, 2001.
    On June 18, 1999, the North American Free Trade Agreement 
Binational Panel reviewing the final results of the 1994/95 
administrative review found that the respondent's Type I bagged cement 
should not have been compared with sales of Type I cement sold in bulk 
to the United States in the calculation of normal value and remanded 
the results of the 1994/95 review to the Department for a recalculation 
of the margin. However, that proceeding has not yet been completed and 
the record in this review supports our continued practice of finding 
the respondent's sales of bagged cement in the home market comparable 
with sales of bulk cement in the United States, within the meaning of 
section 771(16)(B) of the Act, to U.S. sales. Specifically, in 
accordance with section 771(16)(B) of the Act, we find that both bulk 
and bagged cement are produced in the same country and by the same 
producer as the types sold in the United States, both bulk and bagged 
cement are like the types sold in the United States in component 
materials and in the purposes for which used, and both bulk and bagged 
cement are approximately equal in commercial value to the types sold in 
the United States. The questionnaire responses submitted by the 
respondent indicate that, with the exception of packaging, cement sold 
in bulk and in bags are physically identical and both are used in the 
production of concrete. Also, since there is no difference in the cost 
of production between cement sold in bulk or in bagged form (again with 
the exception of packaging), both are approximately equal in commercial 
value. See CEMEX's and GCCC's responses to the Department's original 
and supplemental questionnaires.

B. Ordinary Course of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act requires the Department to base NV 
on ``the price at which the foreign like product is first sold (or in 
the absence of a sale, offered for sale) for consumption in the 
exporting country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the 
ordinary course of trade.'' Ordinary course of trade is defined as 
``the conditions and practices which, for a reasonable time prior to 
the exportation of the subject merchandise, have been normal in the 
trade under consideration with respect to merchandise of the same class 
or kind.'' See section 771(15) of the Act.
    In the instant review, we analyzed home-market sales of cement 
produced as Type V LA, Type V, and Type III cement. Pursuant to section 
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we based our examination on the totality of 
circumstances surrounding the respondent's sales in Mexico that are 
produced as Type V LA, Type V, and Type III cement and, as in previous 
reviews of this order, we continue to find that the respondent's home-
market sales of Type V LA, Type

[[Page 47635]]

V, and Type III cement made during the instant review period are 
outside the ordinary course of trade. See Decision Memorandum to Laurie 
Parkhill, Office Director, concerning Ordinary Course of Trade--Cement 
from Mexico (August 30, 2001). For the majority of the period of 
review, however, where there were contemporaneous sales of identical 
merchandise, we have used such sales in our analysis. See Comparison 
section above.

C. Arm's-Length Sales

    To test whether sales to affiliated customers were made at arm's 
length, where we could test the prices, we compared the prices of sales 
to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, 
direct selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Where the price to the 
affiliated party was on average 99.5 percent or more of the price to 
the unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the 
affiliated party were at arm's length. Consistent with 19 CFR 351.403, 
we included these sales in our analysis. See Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27355 (May 19, 1997).

D. Cost of Production

    The petitioner alleged on December 18, 2000, that the respondent 
sold gray portland cement and clinker in the home market at prices 
below the cost of production (COP). After examining the allegation, we 
determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 
that the respondent had sold the subject merchandise in the home market 
at prices below the COP. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of 
the Act, we initiated a COP investigation in order to determine whether 
the respondent made home-market sales during the period of review at 
below-cost prices. See the memorandum from case analysts to Laurie 
Parkhill entitled Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico: Request 
to Initiate Cost Investigation (March 22, 2001).
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed 
in producing the foreign like product, plus amounts for home-market 
selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and all costs and 
expenses incidental to packing the merchandise. We used the home-market 
sales data and COP information provided by the respondent in its 
questionnaire response.
    After calculating a weighted-average COP, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we tested whether the home-market sales 
of the respondent were made at prices below COP within an extended 
period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices 
permitted recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We 
compared type-specific COPs to the reported home-market prices less any 
applicable movement charges, discounts and rebates, indirect selling 
expenses, commissions, and packing.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, if less than 20 
percent of the respondent's sales of a certain type were at prices less 
than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities 
within an extended period of time. If 20 percent or more of the 
respondent's sales of a certain type during the period of review were 
at prices less than the COP, such below-cost sales were made in 
substantial quantities within an extended period of time pursuant to 
sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. Based on comparisons of home-
market prices to weighted-average COPs for the period of review, we 
determined that below-cost sales of all types of cement were not made 
in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, and, 
therefore, we did not disregard any below-cost sales.

E. Adjustments to Normal Value

    Where appropriate, we adjusted home-market sales of cement produced 
as Type I, Type II LA, CPO 40, CPC 40, and CPC 30 R for discounts, 
rebates, packing, handling, interest revenue, and billing adjustments 
to the invoice price. In addition, we adjusted the starting price for 
inland freight, inland insurance, and pre-sale warehousing expenses. We 
also deducted home-market direct selling expenses from the home-market 
price and home-market indirect selling expenses as a CEP-offset 
adjustment (see Level of Trade/CEP Offset section below). In addition, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home-
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs.
    Section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act directs us to make an 
adjustment to NV to account for differences in the physical 
characteristics of merchandise where similar products are compared. 
Section 351.411(b) of the regulations directs us to consider 
differences in variable costs associated with the physical differences 
in the merchandise. Where we matched U.S. sales of subject merchandise 
to similar models in the home market, we adjusted for differences in 
merchandise.

F. Level of Trade/CEP Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home market at the 
same level of trade as the CEP. The NV level of trade is that of the 
starting-price sales in the home market or, when NV is based on 
constructed value (CV), that of sales from which we derive selling, 
general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For CEP, it is 
the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to an affiliated 
importer after the deductions required under Section 772(d) of the Act.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade 
than CEP, 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. 
Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory 
than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the 
difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price 
comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the 
CEP-offset provision). See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 
62 FR 61731, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997).
    With respect to U.S. sales, we conclude that CEMEX's and GCCC's 
sales to various classes of customers which purchase both bulk and 
bagged cement constituted two separate levels of trade, one CEMEX U.S. 
level of trade and one GCCC U.S. level of trade. We based our 
conclusion on our analysis of each company's reported selling functions 
and sales channels after making deductions for selling expenses under 
section 772(d) of the Act. We found that CEMEX and GCCC performed 
different sales functions for sales to their respective U.S. 
affiliates. For instance, CEMEX reported that it performed technical 
advice, solicitation of orders/customer visits, account receivable 
management, post-sale warehousing, and communication activities whereas 
GCCC reported that it did not perform any of these activities.

[[Page 47636]]

    Based on our analysis of the respondent's reported selling 
functions and sales channels, we conclude that the respondent's home-
market sales to various classes of customers which purchase both bulk 
and bagged cement constitute one level of trade. We found that, with 
some minor exceptions, CEMEX and GCCC performed the same selling 
functions to varying degrees in similar channels of distribution. We 
also concluded that the variations in selling functions were not 
substantial when all selling expenses were considered as a whole. See 
the memorandum entitled Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico: 
Level-of-Trade Analysis for the Tenth Administrative Review, dated 
August 30, 2001.
    Furthermore, the respondent's home-market sales occur at a 
different and more advanced stage of distribution than its sales to the 
United States. For example, the CEMEX U.S. level of trade does not 
include activities such as market research, after-sales service/
warranties, advertising, and packing whereas the home-market level of 
trade includes these activities. Similarly, the GCCC U.S. level of 
trade does not include activities such as market research, technical 
advice, advertising, customer approval, solicitation of orders, 
computer/legal/accounting/business systems, sales promotion, sales 
forecasting, strategic and economic planning, personnel training/
exchange, and procurement and sourcing services whereas the home-market 
level of trade includes these activities.
    As a result of our level-of-trade analysis, we could not match U.S. 
sales at either of the two U.S. levels of trade to sales at the same 
level of trade in the home market because there are no home-market 
sales at the same level of trade. Moreover, we determined that the 
level of trade of the home-market sales is more advanced than the 
levels of the U.S. sales. In addition, because we found only one home-
market level of trade, we could not determine a level-of-trade 
adjustment based on the collapsed entity's home-market sales of 
merchandise under review. Therefore, we have determined that the data 
available do not provide an appropriate basis on which to calculate a 
level-of-trade adjustment. Thus, we made a CEP-offset adjustment in 
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act for the respondent's 
CEP sales. In accordance with section 773(a)(7) of the Act, we 
calculated the CEP offset as the lesser of the following: (1) The 
indirect selling expenses on the home-market sale, or (2) the indirect 
selling expenses deducted from the starting price in calculating CEP. 
See the Level-of-Trade Analysis memorandum.

Currency Conversion

    Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we made currency 
conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the dumping 
margin for the collapsed parties, CEMEX and GCCC, for the period August 
1, 1999, through July 31, 2000, to be 48.53 percent.
    We will disclose calculations performed in connection with these 
preliminary results to parties within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties 
may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. A 
hearing, if requested, will be held at the main Commerce Department 
building three days after submission of rebuttal briefs.
    Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the 
respective case and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested 
parties may be filed no later than 30 days after publication of this 
notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in case briefs, 
may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline for filing 
case briefs.
    Parties who submit case 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 with an electronic version 
included.
    Upon completion of this review, the Department will determine, and 
the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. We have calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on 
the entered value for subject merchandise sold during the period of 
review. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions 
directly to the Customs Service upon completion of this review.
    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 review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 
(1) The cash deposit rate for the respondent will be the rate 
determined in the final results of review; (2) for previously reviewed 
or investigated companies not mentioned 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 in 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 (4) the cash-deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will be 61.35 percent, the all-others rate 
from the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements, 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) 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 dumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this 
notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 31, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-23031 Filed 9-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P