[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 6, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40617-40621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-15227]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-405-803, A-201-834, A-421-811, A-401-808]


Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Purified 
Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) From Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and 
Sweden

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

ACTION: Initiation of antidumping duty investigations.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian J. Sheba (Finland) at 202-482-
0145, Mark Flessner (Mexico) at 202-482-6312, John Drury (the 
Netherlands) at 202-482-0195, Patrick Edwards (Sweden) at 202-482-8029, 
Robert James at 202-482-0649, or Abdelali Elouraradia at 202-482-1374, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigations

The Petition

    On June 9, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received an antidumping duty petition (Petition) filed in the proper 
form by Aqualon Company (Aqualon or petitioner), a division of Hercules 
Incorporated. Aqualon is a domestic producer of purified 
carboxymethylcellulose (CMC). On June 15, 2004, the Department 
requested clarification on a number of different issues raised by the 
Petition. On June 18, 2004, petitioner submitted information to 
supplement the Petition (Supplemental Petition). The Department 
requested additional revisions to the Petition on June 22, 2004, and 
June 25, 2004, to which petitioner responded on June 24, 2004 (Second 
Supplemental Petition) and June 28, 2004 (Third Supplemental Petition). 
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act), petitioner alleges imports of CMC from Finland, Mexico, the 
Netherlands, and Sweden are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 
United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 
of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or 
threatening material injury to, the U.S. industry.
    The Department finds that petitioner filed its Petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because it is an

[[Page 40618]]

interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and it has 
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the 
investigations it is presently seeking. See Determination of Industry 
Support for the Petition section below.

Scope of the Investigations

    For purposes of these investigations, the products covered are all 
purified carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), sometimes also referred to as 
purified sodium CMC, polyanionic cellulose, or cellulose gum, which is 
a white to off-white, non-toxic, odorless, biodegradable powder, 
comprising sodium carboxymethylcellulose that has been refined and 
purified to a minimum assay of 90 percent. Purified CMC does not 
include unpurified or crude CMC, CMC Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, and 
CMC that is cross-linked through heat treatment. Purified CMC is CMC 
that has undergone one or more purification operations which, at a 
minimum, reduce the remaining salt and other by-product portion of the 
product to less than ten percent.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 
3912.31.00. This tariff classification is provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of 
these investigations is dispositive.
    During our review of the Petition, we discussed the scope with the 
petitioner to ensure that it accurately reflects the product for which 
the domestic industry is seeking relief. See Memorandum from Deborah 
Scott to the File, dated June 24, 2004. Moreover, as discussed in the 
preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period 
for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. See Antidumping 
Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (1997). 
The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such 
comments within 20 days of publication of this notice. Comments should 
be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit, Room 
1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is 
intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider 
all comments and consult with parties prior to the issuance of the 
preliminary determinations.

Periods of Investigation

    The anticipated period of investigation (POI) for Finland, Mexico, 
the Netherlands, and Sweden is April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004. 
See 19 CFR 351.204(b).

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that the Department's industry support determination, which is 
to be made before the initiation of the investigation, be based on 
whether a minimum percentage of the relevant industry supports the 
petition. A petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers 
or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 
percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) 
more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act 
provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic 
producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total 
production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll 
the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if 
there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or 
(ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling 
method.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a 
petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the 
Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic 
like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is 
responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has been 
injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product 
in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC 
must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like 
product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes 
and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the 
Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and 
information. Although this may result in different definitions of the 
like product, such differences do not render the decision of either 
agency contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 
2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States, 
688 F. Supp. 639, 642-44 (CIT 1988).
    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition.
    With regard to the domestic like product, petitioner does not offer 
a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the 
investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted in 
the Petition we have determined that there is a single domestic like 
product, purified CMC, which is defined further in the ``Scope of the 
Investigations'' section above, and we have analyzed industry support 
in terms of that domestic like product. For more information on our 
analysis and the data upon which we relied, see Antidumping Duty 
Investigation Initiation Checklist (Initiation Checklist), dated June 
29, 2004, Appendix II--Industry Support on file in the Central Record 
Unit (CRU) in room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building.
    In determining whether the domestic petitioner has standing, we 
considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with 
reference to the domestic like product as defined above in the ``Scope 
of the Investigations'' section. Petitioner is the sole manufacturer or 
producer of the domestic like product. See IMR International Quarterly 
Review of Food Hydrocolloids for the third quarter of 2003, Petition at 
page 2 and Exhibit 1-H, at 55.
    Using the data described above, the share of total estimated U.S. 
production of CMC in year 2003 represented by petitioner equals over 50 
percent of total domestic production. Therefore, the Department finds 
that the domestic producers who support the Petition account for at 
least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. 
In addition, as no domestic producers have expressed opposition to the 
Petition, the Department also finds that the domestic producers who 
support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production 
of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry 
expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.

[[Page 40619]]

    Therefore, we find that petitioner has met the requirements of 
section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act.

Export Price and Normal Value

    The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate these investigations. The source or sources of data for the 
adjustments relating to U.S. and foreign market prices have been 
accorded treatment as business proprietary information. Petitioner's 
sources and methodology are discussed in greater detail in the business 
proprietary version of the Petition and in our Initiation Checklist. We 
revised certain information contained in the Petition's margin 
calculations; these revisions are set forth in detail in the Initiation 
Checklist. Should the need arise to use any of this information as 
facts available under section 776 of the Act in our preliminary or 
final determinations, we may re-examine this information and revise the 
margin calculations, if appropriate.

Export and Normal Value Price for All Countries

    Petitioner has relied on prices in affidavits of Aqualon employees 
to establish U.S. and normal value (NV) prices. Petitioner computed the 
ex-factory export price in U.S. dollars by obtaining from members of 
its U.S. sales force information on selling price in the United States 
of CMC produced in the subject countries. Petitioner then deducted 
costs incident to transporting and selling the subject merchandise to 
customers in the United States based on information from its shipping/
logistics department. Petitioner's adjustments to U.S. price also 
relied on costs more closely matched to the date of the U.S. price, 
rather than an average over the entire POI. See Petition at Exhibit 4 
at 4-1. However, the Department has determined that foreign currency 
conversions should be based on averages for the entire POI. See 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment V. Petitioner did not include 
warehousing expenses as an adjustment to the U.S. sales price because 
petitioner did not know whether the price quotes obtained in the 
affidavit were warehoused by Noviant in the United States or shipped 
directly to the customer. See Petition at Exhibit 4 at 4-3, note 3. We 
have accepted this methodology for the purposes of initiation.
    To calculate NV, petitioner obtained home market prices in the 
subject countries from members of its sales force located in these 
countries. Petitioner then made deductions incident to transporting and 
selling the subject merchandise to arrive at NV. See Petition at 
Exhibit 4 at 4-2.
    Petitioner did not make adjustments for imputed credit expenses for 
the U.S. or home market prices. Petitioner stated that neither payment 
terms nor interest rates are believed to be materially different for 
CMC in the United States and the home markets. Accordingly, petitioner 
did not make an imputed credit adjustment since such adjustment would 
not have a material effect on the dumping margins. See Petition at 
Exhibit 4 at 4-2, note 2. We have accepted this methodology for the 
purposes of initiation.

Finland

Export Price

    To calculate export price (EP), petitioner obtained a price 
contemporaneous with the POI for subject merchandise sold to a 
potential U.S. customer for calendar year 2004 by Noviant, a producer 
of purified CMC in Finland, from its plant in Finland. See Petition at 
Exhibit 5. The price includes freight delivered to the customer's 
manufacturing sites in the United States. Petitioner then made 
adjustments for U.S. inland freight expense, ocean freight and marine 
insurance, documentation fees, port fees, U.S. customs duties, intra-
European freight, and foreign inland freight expense.
    Because Chicago is Noviant's Midwestern distribution point and 
Noviant's customer at issue is located in the Midwest, petitioner 
calculated U.S. inland freight on the basis of a New York to Chicago 
rail price quote obtained by a company official from independent 
shipping companies. See Petition at Exhibit 4 at 4-4 and Second 
Supplemental Response at Exhibit 4-B. Petitioner next calculated the 
per pound freight charge from this quote. See Petition at Exhibit 4-A.
    Petitioner calculated ocean freight and marine insurance based on 
the difference between the CIF and FOB average unit value of CMC 
imports into the United States from the month most closely associated 
with the U.S. date of sale. For Finland, petitioner utilized U.S. 
Census data for December 2003. See Petition at Exhibit 4-D. The 
Department has determined that a POI-wide ocean unit freight value 
which excludes any shipment of CMC valued below $0.80/lb or above 
$2.75/lb is a more accurate representation of ocean freight expense for 
the subject merchandise. Accordingly, the Department requested that 
petitioner correct the ocean freight rates. The correction has slightly 
changed petitioner's ocean freight expense. See Third Supplemental 
Petition and Initiation Checklist.
    Petitioner obtained prices for an import documentation fee on a per 
container basis from a price quote from a logistics company. See Second 
Supplemental Response at Exhibit 4-B. Petitioner converted the 
container-based charge to a per pound basis. See Petition at Exhibit 4-
A.
    Harbor maintenance and merchandise processing fees at the port of 
importation were quoted to petitioner from an independent shipper. See 
Second Supplemental Response at Exhibit 4-B. These fees are, 
respectively, 0.125 percent and 0.21 percent of the entered value of 
imports. Ad valorem duties on imports of CMC for HTS heading 3912.31 
are 6.4 percent of FOB value. See Petition at Exhibit 4-C.
    Petitioner calculated foreign inland freight charges based on its 
knowledge of the location of the Noviant plant in Aanekoski, Finland 
and the logistics for the lowest cost method of exporting CMC to the 
United States. See Second Supplemental Response at Exhibit 4-B. 
Petitioner assumes a shipment ex-works Aanekoski to the port of Kotka, 
Finland and then by ocean freight to Hamburg, Germany. See Second 
Supplemental Response at Exhibit 4-B. Petitioner then converts the 
shipping charges to a per pound basis. See Petition Exhibit 4-A and 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment V.

Normal Value

    To calculate home market NV, petitioner met with representatives of 
a Finnish customer during the POI. During the course of that meeting, 
the customer stated the current Noviant price on a delivered basis. 
Petitioner converted this price from Euros per kilogram to U.S. dollars 
per pound. See Petition at Exhibit 5-A and Initiation Checklist at 
Attachment V.
    Petitioner's only adjustment to NV is foreign inland freight 
expense to account for the shipment of the subject merchandise from 
Noviant's plant in Aanekoski, Finland to the customer's plant in 
Finland. Petitioner ascertained this freight expense through a price 
quote from an independent shipper. See Second Supplemental Petition at 
Exhibit 4-B. Petitioner then converted this freight expense to a U.S. 
dollar per pound basis. See Second Supplemental Petition at Exhibit 4-E 
and Initiation Checklist at Attachment V.
    We have accepted this methodology for purposes of this initiation. 
The export price to normal value

[[Page 40620]]

comparison produced a dumping margin of 6.65 percent. See Initiation 
Checklist at Attachment V.

Mexico

Export Price

    To calculate EP, petitioner obtained a price for the subject 
merchandise contemporaneous with the POI by Quimica Amtex, S.A. de C.V. 
(Amtex), a Mexican producer of CMC, from its plant in Mexico to a U.S.-
based customer. See Petition at Exhibit 6. Petitioner then made 
adjustments for U.S. and foreign inland freight, insurance, and U.S. 
border crossing fees.
    Petitioner calculated U.S. and foreign inland freight on the basis 
of a price quote obtained by a company official. This price quote 
encompasses a single cost for truck freight from Amtex's plant in 
Mexico to the customer in the United States. See Second Supplemental 
Response at Exhibit 4-B. Petitioner then calculated a per pound freight 
charge from this quote. See Petition at Exhibit 4-A.
    To calculate insurance expenses petitioner relied on the difference 
between the CIF and FOB average unit value of purified CMC imports into 
the United States from Mexico. The U.S. Bureau of the Census served as 
the source of these data. See Petition at Exhibit 4-D and Third 
Supplemental Petition.
    Petitioner computed U.S. border crossing fees based on a price 
quote from a company official. See Second Supplemental Response at 
Exhibit 4-B. Petitioner then converted this fee to a per pound basis. 
See Petition at Exhibit 6.

Normal Value

    To calculate NV, petitioner met with representatives of a Mexican 
customer during the POI. During the course of that meeting, the 
customer presented a price quote showing Amtex's current price to that 
customer on a delivered basis. See Petition at Exhibit 6.
    Petitioner adjusted NV by deducting foreign inland freight 
expenses. Petitioner based this adjustment on a freight rate obtained 
by an employee for shipping CMC by truck from its plant to its customer 
in Mexico. See Second Supplemental Response at Exhibit 4-B and 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment V. Petitioner made no other 
deductions to NV.
    We have accepted this methodology for purposes of this initiation. 
The export price to normal value comparison produced a dumping margin 
of 71.91 percent. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment V.

The Netherlands

U.S. Price

    To calculate EP, petitioner obtained a price contemporaneous with 
the POI for subject merchandise sold to a customer in the United States 
for calendar year 2004 by Aqualon's competitor, Noviant, from its plant 
in the Netherlands. See Petition at Exhibit 7. The quoted price 
includes freight delivered to the customer's manufacturing site in the 
United States. Petitioner then made adjustments for U.S. inland freight 
expense, ocean freight and marine insurance, documentation fees, port 
fees, U.S. customs duties, and foreign inland freight expense.
    Petitioner calculated U.S. inland freight on the basis of a truck 
rate quote from the port in Charleston, South Carolina to the 
customer's location obtained by a company official from independent 
shipping companies. See Second Supplemental Response at Exhibit 4-B. 
Petitioner next calculated the per pound freight charge from this 
quote. See Petition at Exhibit 4-A.
    Petitioner calculated ocean freight and marine insurance based on 
the difference between the CIF and FOB average unit value of CMC 
imports into the United States in the month most closely associated 
with the U.S. date of sale. For the Netherlands, petitioner used U.S. 
Census data from March 2004. See Petition at Exhibit 4-D. The 
Department has determined that a POI-wide ocean unit freight value 
which excludes any shipment of CMC valued below $0.80/lb or above 
$2.75/lb is a more accurate representation of ocean freight expense for 
the subject merchandise. Accordingly, the Department requested that 
petitioner correct the ocean freight rates. The correction has slightly 
changed petitioner's ocean freight expense. See Third Supplemental 
Petition and Initiation Checklist.
    Petitioner obtained prices for an import documentation fee on a per 
container basis from a price quote from a logistics company. See Second 
Supplemental Response at Exhibit 4-B. Petitioner converted the 
container-based charge to a per pound basis. See Petition at Exhibit 4-
A.
    Harbor maintenance and merchandise processing fees at the port of 
importation were quoted to petitioner from an independent shipper. See 
Second Supplemental Response at Exhibit 4-B. These fees are, 
respectively, 0.125 percent and 0.21 percent of the entered value of 
imports. Ad valorem duties on imports of CMC for HTS heading 3912.31 
are 6.4 percent of FOB value. See Petition at Exhibit 4-C.
    Petitioner calculated foreign inland freight charges based on its 
knowledge of the location of the Noviant plant in Nijmegen, the 
Netherlands and the logistics for the lowest cost method of exporting 
CMC to the United States. See Second Supplemental Response at Exhibit 
4-B. Petitioner assumes a shipment ex-works Nijmegen to the port of 
Rotterdam, the Netherlands. See Second Supplemental Response at Exhibit 
4-B. Petitioner then converted the shipping charges to a per pound 
basis. See Petition Exhibit 4-A and Initiation Checklist at Attachment 
V.

Normal Value

    To calculate home market NV, petitioner spoke with a Dutch 
customer. During the course of that conversation, the customer gave 
petitioner a purchase price for CMC from a producer of CMC in the 
Netherlands. See Petition at Exhibit 7 and Initiation Checklist at 
Attachment V.
    Petitioner's only adjustment to NV is foreign inland freight 
expense to account for the shipment of the subject merchandise from 
Zaamdan, the Netherlands to the customer's plant in the Netherlands. 
Petitioner ascertained this freight expense through a price quote from 
an independent shipper. See Second Supplemental Petition at Exhibit 4-
B. Petitioner then converted this freight expense to a U.S. dollar per 
pound basis. See Second Supplemental Petition at Exhibit 4-E and 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment V.
    We have accepted this methodology for purposes of this initiation. 
The export price to normal value comparison produced a dumping margin 
of 39.46 percent. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment V.

Sweden

Export Price

    To calculate export price, petitioner obtained a price quote from a 
U.S. consumer of CMC contemporaneous with the POI for subject 
merchandise from Noviant, a producer of CMC in Sweden, from its plant 
in Sweden. See Petition at Exhibit 8 and Second Supplemental Petition 
at Exhibit 8. Petitioner made adjustments for U.S. inland freight 
expense, ocean freight and insurance, documentation and port fees, U.S. 
customs duties, intra-European freight expense and foreign inland 
freight expense.
    Petitioner calculated U.S. inland freight on the basis of a rail 
quote from an independent shipping company. The rail quote is from 
Charleston, South

[[Page 40621]]

Carolina to the U.S. customer's manufacturing site in the United 
States. See Second Supplemental Petition at Exhibit 4-B and Third 
Supplemental Petition. Petitioner next calculated the per pound freight 
charge from this quote. See Petition at Exhibit 4-A for methodology and 
Second Supplemental Petition Exhibit 8.
    Petitioner calculated ocean freight and insurance to the United 
States based on the difference between CIF and FOB average unit values 
of imports in the month most closely corresponding with the U.S. date 
of sale. For Sweden, petitioner used U.S. Census data from March 2004. 
See Petition at Exhibit 4 at 4-6 and Exhibits 4-A and 4-D. The 
Department has determined that a POI-wide ocean unit freight value 
which excludes any shipment of CMC valued below $0.80/lb or above 
$2.75/lb is a more accurate representation of ocean freight expense for 
the subject merchandise. Accordingly, the Department requested that 
petitioner correct the ocean freight rates. The correction has slightly 
changed petitioner's ocean freight expense. See Third Supplemental 
Petition and Initiation Checklist.
    Documentation fees were based upon a per container price quote 
obtained from its in-house logistics company. See Second Supplemental 
Response at Exhibit 4-B. Petitioner converted this price to a dollar 
per pound basis for its margin calculation. See Petition at Exhibit 4-
A. Harbor maintenance and merchandise processing fees at the port of 
importation were quoted to petitioner from an independent shipper. See 
Second Supplemental Response at Exhibit 4-B. These fees are, 
respectively, 0.125 percent and 0.21 percent of the entered value of 
imports. Ad valorem duties on imports under HTS heading 3912.31 are 6.4 
percent of FOB value. See Petition at Exhibit 4 at 4-4 to 4-5 and 
Exhibit 4-C.
    Petitioner calculated foreign inland freight expense based on its 
knowledge of the distance from Noviant AB's production facility in 
Skoghal, Sweden and the logistics for the lowest cost method of 
exporting subject merchandise to the United States. See Second 
Supplemental Response at 4-B. Petitioner assumes a shipment ex-works by 
truck or rail from Skoghal to the port of G[ouml]teborg, Sweden and 
then by ocean freight to either Hamburg or Bremerhaven, both in 
Germany. See Second Supplemental Response at Exhibit 4-B and 
Supplemental Petition at 16. All shipping charges are converted to a 
per pound basis. See Petition at Exhibit 4-A and Initiation Checklist 
at Attachment V.

Normal Value

    To calculate home market NV, petitioner conducted sales calls with 
representatives of two Swedish purchasers of the subject merchandise. 
The calls were made contemporaneous within the anticipated POI. During 
these two separate telephone conversations, the potential customers 
indicated to petitioner the current price being offered by Noviant for 
a particular grade of the subject merchandise. Petitioner converted 
this price to establish the U.S. dollar price per pound. See Petition 
at Exhibit 8-A and Initiation Checklist at Attachment V.
    Petitioner's only adjustment to NV is foreign inland freight 
expense to account for the shipment of the subject merchandise from 
Noviant's plant in Skoghal, Sweden to its customer in Sweden. 
Petitioner ascertained this freight expense through a price quote from 
an independent shipper. See Second Supplemental Petition at Exhibit 4-
B. Petitioner then converted this freight expense to a U.S. dollar per 
pound basis. See Second Supplemental Petition at Exhibit 4-E and 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment V.
    We have accepted this methodology for purposes of this initiation. 
The export price to normal value comparison produced a dumping margin 
of 25.29 percent. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment V.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by petitioner, there is reason to 
believe imports of purified CMC from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, 
and Sweden are being, or are likely to be, sold at less than fair 
value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    With respect to Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden, 
petitioner alleges the U.S. industry producing the domestic like 
product is being materially injured, or threatened with material 
injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated imports of the 
subject merchandise sold at less than NV.
    Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
evident in examining net operating income, profit, net sales volumes, 
production employment, as well as inventory levels, and reduced 
capacity utilization. See Petition at pages 26-27 and Petition Exhibit 
10. Petitioner asserts its share of the market has declined from 2001 
to 2003. See Petition at pages 19-20 and Petition Exhibit 11. For a 
full discussion of the allegations and evidence of material injury, See 
Initiation Checklist.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based on our examination of the Petition covering purified CMC, we 
find it meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we 
are initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether 
imports of purified CMC from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and 
Sweden are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at 
less than fair value. Unless this deadline is extended pursuant to 
section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we will make our preliminary 
determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this 
initiation, or November 16, 2004.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 
public version of the Petition has been provided to representatives of 
the governments of Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden. We 
will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to 
each exporter named in the Petition, as provided in section 19 CFR 
351.203(c)(2).

International Trade Commission Notification

    The ITC will preliminarily determine on July 23, 2004, whether 
there is reasonable indication that imports of purified CMC from 
Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden are causing, or 
threatening, material injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC 
determination for any country will result in the investigation being 
terminated with respect to that country; otherwise, these 
investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time 
limits.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: June 29, 2004.
Jeffrey May,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-15227 Filed 7-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P