[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 121 (Thursday, June 24, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35293-35296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-14363]


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

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]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P