[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51191-51193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-19985]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-812]


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request by a U.S. producer, the Department of 
Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from Thailand. This review 
covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Indorama 
Chemicals (Thailand) Limited (Indorama). The period of review (POR) is 
July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001.
    We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal 
value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final 
results, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties based on the difference between the export price 
(EP) and the NV.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Riggle or Tisha Loeper-Viti at

[[Page 51192]]

(202) 482-0650 and (202) 482-7425, respectively; 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:

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 (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR 
Part 351 (April 2002).

Case History

    On July 25, 1995, the Department issued an antidumping duty order 
on furfuryl alcohol from Thailand. See Notice of Amended Final 
Antidumping Duty Determination and Order: Furfuryl Alcohol from 
Thailand, 60 FR 38035 (July 25, 1995). On July 2, 2001, we published in 
the Federal Register the notice of opportunity to request an 
administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing 
Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review, 66 FR 34910 (July 2, 2001).
    On July 31, 2001, a U.S. producer of furfuryl alcohol, Penn 
Specialty Chemicals, Inc., in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), 
requested a review of Indorama. On August 20, 2001, we published the 
notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review, 
covering the period July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000. See Initiation 
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Requests for Revocation in Part, 66 FR 43570 (August 20, 2001).

Scope of the Review

    The merchandise covered by this review is furfuryl alcohol 
(C\4\H\3\OCH\2\OH). Furfuryl alcohol is a primary alcohol, and is 
colorless or pale yellow in appearance. It is used in the manufacture 
of resins and as a wetting agent and solvent for coating resins, 
nitrocellulose, cellulose acetate, and other soluble dyes.
    The product subject to this order is classifiable under subheading 
2932.13.00 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 of this 
proceeding is dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

    We compared the EP to the NV, as described in the Export Price and 
Normal Value sections of this notice. We were able to compare all sales 
of furfuryl alcohol made by Indorama to the United States to 
contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise in the home market.

Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used EP as defined in 
sections 772(a) of the Act, because all merchandise was sold by 
Indorama to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States 
outside the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not 
otherwise indicated. 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 of the United States to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for 
exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c).
    We calculated EP based on the packed CIF destination price to 
unaffiliated purchasers. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the 
Act, we made additions to the starting price for duty drawback, and 
deductions from the starting price for foreign movement expenses (i.e., 
inland freight and inland insurance), U.S. movement expenses (i.e., 
international freight and marine insurance), and U.S. brokerage and 
handling. See Analysis Memorandum for Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) 
Ltd., dated July 31, 2002 (Indorama Analysis Memo), on file in the 
Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B-099 of the Herbert C. Hoover 
Building, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market
    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market 
sales and U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of foreign like 
product Indorama sold in Thailand is more than 5 percent of the 
quantity of its sales to the U.S. market and permits a proper 
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United 
States. See section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we based NV on the price at which 
the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the home 
market.
B. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
    We determined price-based NVs for Indorama as follows. We made 
adjustments for differences in packing in accordance with sections 
773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act, and we deducted movement 
expenses (i.e., foreign inland freight and foreign inland insurance) 
consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We also made 
circumstance of sale (COS) adjustments by deducting direct selling 
expenses (i.e., credit expenses) incurred on home market sales and 
adding direct selling expenses (i.e., credit expenses) incurred on U.S. 
sales. See Indorama Analysis Memo.
    We note that Indorama, in its November 28 and December 18, 2001, 
submissions, argued that certain home market sales were outside the 
ordinary course of trade. Upon examining the information provided, we 
have preliminarily determined that these sales are within the ordinary 
course of trade and have, therefore, included these sales in our margin 
calculation. For further details, see Indorama Analysis Memo.

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 (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV LOT 
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 LOT than the U.S. 
transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If comparison-market sales are at different 
LOTs, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in 
a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV 
is based and the comparison-market sales which are at the same LOT as 
the export transactions, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under 
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes From Canada, 67 FR 8781 
(February 26, 2002).
    In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained 
information

[[Page 51193]]

from Indorama about the marketing stage involved in the reported U.S. 
and home-market sales, including a description of the selling 
activities performed for each channel of distribution. In identifying 
levels of trade for EP and home-market sales, we considered the selling 
functions reflected in the starting price before any adjustments. We 
expect that, if claimed LOTs are the same,
    the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. 
Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are different for different 
groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be 
dissimilar.
    Indorama reported that all of its sales made to the United States 
were to unaffiliated trading companies. For its sales in the home 
market, Indorama reported two different channels of distribution, 
reflecting its two different categories of customers: (1) sales through 
unaffiliated trading companies, and (2) direct sales to end-users. 
Indorama claimed that the sales to the trading companies in the United 
States and to the trading companies in Thailand were at the same level 
of trade, while sales to end-users in the home market were at a 
different level of trade.
    We examined the selling functions for Indorama in Thailand and the 
United States and found that sales activities were substantially the 
same in both markets. We also determined that, while there exist two 
customer categories in the home market, trading companies and end-
users, there is only one channel of distribution, i.e., direct sales 
from the factory to the unaffiliated customer. Our examination of the 
selling activities, selling expenses, and customer categories involved 
in this channel of distribution indicates that it constitutes a single 
LOT, and, furthermore, that this LOT is equivalent to that of 
Indorama's U.S. sales.

Currency Conversion

    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. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average margin exists for the period July 1, 2000, 
through June 30, 2001:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                   Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd....................               0.91
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to 
comment on the preliminary results. Interested parties may submit case 
briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be 
filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication. Parties who 
submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument: (1) a 
statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument and (3) a 
table of authorities. Further, we would appreciate it if parties 
submitting written comments would provide the Department with an 
additional copy of the public version of any such comments on a 
diskette. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be 
held 44 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday 
thereafter. The Department will publish a notice of the final results 
of this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or hearing, 
within 120 days from publication of this notice.

Assessment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an 
assessment rate for each importer of subject merchandise. We have 
calculated each importer's duty assessment rate based on the ratio of 
the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined 
sales to the total entered value of examined sales. Upon completion of 
this review, the Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to 
assess antidumping duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that 
importer, where the assessment rate is above de minimis.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
furfuryl alcohol from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Indorama 
will be the rate established in the final results of this review, 
except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis, 
the cash deposit will be zero; (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 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) 
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this 
or any previous review or the LTFV investigation conducted by the 
Department, the cash deposit rate will be 7.82 percent, the ``all 
others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation.
    These cash deposit 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 31, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-19985 Filed 8-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S