[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75902-75907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-3742]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-469-814]


Chlorinated Isocyanurates From Spain: Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination

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

DATES: Effective Dates: December 20, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paige Rivas at (202) 482-0651; AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, Room 1870, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that chlorinated isocyanurates 
(chlorinated isos) from Spain are being, or are 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 margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Suspension of 
Liquidation'' section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to 
comment on this preliminary determination. We will make our final 
determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of 
this preliminary determination.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History

    On May 14, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received a petition for the imposition of antidumping duties on imports 
of chlorinated isos from Spain, filed in proper form, by Clearon 
Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation (collectively, the 
petitioners). See Letter from the petitioners to Secretary Evans of the 
Department and Secretary Abbott of the U.S. International Trade 
Commission (ITC), ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties: 
Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China and 
Spain,'' dated May 14, 2004 (the Petition). Pursuant to section 773(b) 
of the Act, the petitioners provided information in the petition 
demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales in 
the home market of Spain were made at prices below the fully absorbed 
cost of production (COP) and, accordingly, requested that the 
Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-COP investigation in 
connection with the requested antidumping duty investigation. The 
Department initiated this antidumping duty investigation, along with a 
country-wide sales-below-COP investigation, of chlorinated isos from 
Spain on June 3, 2004. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations: Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of 
China and Spain, 69 FR 32488 (June 10, 2004) (Initiation Notice). Since 
the initiation of the investigation, the following events have 
occurred.
    On June 28, 2004, the ITC preliminarily determined that there is a 
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured by reason of chlorinated isos imported from Spain 
that are alleged to be sold in the United States at LTFV. See 
Chlorinated Isocyanurates from China and Spain, Investigations Nos. 
731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Preliminary), 2004 ITC Lexis 623 (July 2004).
    On June 22, 2004, the Department issued proposed product 
characteristics to interested parties. Aragonesas Delsa S.A. (Delsa) 
and the petitioners submitted comments on the proposed product 
characteristics on July 7, 2004, while Delsa submitted rebuttal 
comments on July 14, 2004. After an analysis of interested parties' 
comments, the Department issued revised product characteristics and 
model match hierarchy on July 16, 2004, inviting interested parties to 
comment. On July 21, 2004, Delsa and the petitioners informed the 
Department that they agree with the Department's revised product 
characteristics and model match hierarchy. On September 3, 2004, the 
Department further revised the product characteristics and model match 
criteria being reported by Delsa in its response to Sections B and C of 
the antidumping duty questionnaire in order to accommodate a more 
complete range of free available chlorine content and packaging sizes.
    On June 28, 2004, the Department issued Section A of its 
antidumping duty questionnaire to Delsa, to which Delsa responded on 
July 21, 2004.\1\ On

[[Page 75903]]

July 16, 2004, the Department issued Sections B-E of its antidumping 
duty questionnaire to Delsa, and Delsa responded to Sections B-D on 
August 23, 2004. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires for 
Sections A-D to Delsa on August 31, September 7, September 13, October 
22, October 29, November 5, and November 29, 2004. Delsa filed 
responses to these supplemental questionnaires on September 8, 
September 28, October 4, November 12, November 22, 2004, and December 
2, 2004, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under investigation, and the manner in which the 
company sells that merchandise in all markets. Section B requests a 
complete listing of all of the company's home market sales of the 
foreign like product or, if the home market is not viable, sales of 
the foreign like product in the most appropriate third-country 
market (this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market 
economy cases). Section C requests a complete listing of the 
company's U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Section D requests 
information on the cost of production of the foreign like product 
and the constructed value of the merchandise under investigation. 
Section E requests information on further manufacturing. See http://ia.ita.doc.gov/questionnaires/questionnaires-ad.html, which can be 
accessed directly on the Web, for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 16, 2004, the petitioners made a timely request 
pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) for 
postponement of the preliminary determination for 50 days or until 
December 10, 2004. On October 1, 2004, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) 
of the Act, the Department postponed the preliminary determination of 
this investigation by 50 days, from October 21, 2004, until December 
10, 2004. See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty 
Determinations: Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of 
China and Spain, 69 FR 60352 (October 8, 2004).

Postponement of the Final Determination

    Section 735(a)(2)(A) 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 November 24, 2004, Delsa 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. Delsa also included a 
request to extend the provisional measures to not more than 135 days 
after the publication of the preliminary determination. Accordingly, 
because we have made an affirmative preliminary determination, and the 
requesting party accounts 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 period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2003, through March 
31, 2004. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). This period corresponds to the four 
most recent fiscal quarters prior to the filing of the petition.

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are chlorinated isos. 
Chlorinated isos are derivatives of cyanuric acid, described as 
chlorinated s-triazine triones. There are three primary chemical 
compositions of chlorinated isos: (1) trichloroisocyanuric acid 
(C13 (NCO)3), (2) sodium dichloroisocyanurate 
(dihydrate) (NaCl2(NCO)3  2H2 
O), and (3) sodium dichloroisocyanurate (anhydrous) 
(NaCl2(NCO)3). Chlorinated isos are available in 
powder, granular, and tabletted forms. This investigation cover all 
chlorinated isos.
    Chlorinated isos are currently classifiable under subheading 
2933.69.6050 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). This tariff classification represents a basket category that 
includes chlorinated isos and other compounds including an unfused 
triazine ring. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise remains dispositive.

Scope Comments

    The Department set aside a period for all interested parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage of the scope of the 
investigation. See Initiation Notice, 69 FR at 32489. Arch Chemicals, 
Inc. (Arch) submitted comments on July 1, 2004, and rebuttal comments 
on July 12, 2004, and July 30, 2004, in which it argued that its 
patented chlorinated isos tablet should be excluded from the scope of 
this investigation. Petitioners submitted comments on June 30, 2004, 
and rebuttal comments on July 21, 2004, in which they stated their 
opposition to excluding Arch's patented chlorinated isos tablet from 
the scope. On October 21, 2004, the Department held ex-parte meetings 
with Arch's counsel to discuss its scope exclusion request (see ex-
parte memoranda to the file dated October 22, and 28, 2004). Based on 
our analysis of the record evidence, we preliminarily find that Arch's 
patented chlorinated isos tablet is included within the scope of this 
antidumping duty investigation. For a detailed discussion of Arch and 
the petitioners' comments, as well as the Department's position that 
the scope of this order includes Arch's patented chlorinated isos 
tablet, see Memorandum from Holly A. Kuga, Senior Office Director for 
Office 4, to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, ``Scope of the Antidumping Duty Investigations 
of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China and 
Spain,'' dated December 10, 2004, which is on file in the Central 
Records Unit (CRU), Room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building.

Selection of Respondent

    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 
producers/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the 
Act permits the Department 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 from the exporting country that can reasonably be 
examined. As guidance in selecting respondents, the petitioners stated 
that Delsa is believed to account for most, if not all, of the exports 
of chlorinated isos into the United States. See Petition at 23. We 
obtained import statistics from U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) and confirmed this claim. In addition, the ITC, in its 
preliminary determination, identified Delsa as the only exporter of 
subject merchandise from Spain to the United States during the POI. See 
Preliminary at 3. Therefore, we selected Delsa as the mandatory 
respondent in this investigation.

[[Page 75904]]

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products 
manufactured by the respondents in the home market and covered by the 
description contained in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section, above, 
and sold in the home market in the ordinary course of trade during the 
POI are considered to be foreign like products for purposes of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have 
relied upon four criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to 
comparison-market sales of the foreign like product: (1) Chemical 
structure; (2) free available chlorine (FAC) content;\2\ (3) physical 
form; and (4) packaging. Where there were no sales of identical 
merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade, we 
compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product 
made in the ordinary course of trade, based on the characteristics 
listed above. Where we were unable to match U.S. sales to home market 
sales of the foreign like product, we based normal value (NV) on 
constructed value (CV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ FAC is the portion of the total chlorine remaining in 
chlorinated water that has not reacted with contaminants, and is 
``free'' to go to work killing bacteria and other contaminants. It 
is formed when Dichlor or Trichlor or chlorine gas is mixed with 
water and dissociates. The FAC is the main pool water disinfectant/
sanitizer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of chlorinated isos from Spain were made 
in the United States at LTFV, we compared the export price (EP) to the 
NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections 
of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 
we calculated weighted-average EPs. We compared these to weighted-
average NVs in Spain on the basis of shipment date. We determined this 
to be the appropriate date of sale because shipment date reflects the 
time at which the material terms of sale were established.

Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used EP as defined in 
section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold by 
Delsa before the date of importation to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States. 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 772(c) 
of the Act. We based EP on packed and delivered prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We have excluded U.S. sales of Dichlor 
from our analysis for the purposes of the preliminary determination. 
For additional information, see Memorandum from Mark Manning, Acting 
Program Manager, to Holly A. Kuga, Senior Office Director for Office 4, 
``Whether to Exclude Products from the Respondent's Universe of 
Sales,'' dated December 10, 2004 (Products Memorandum).
    In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we reduced 
Delsa's starting price by billing adjustments and movement expenses. 
Billing adjustments included early payment discounts and other billing 
adjustments (which include corrections to invoices). Movement expenses 
included, where appropriate, inland freight, brokerage and handling, 
and international freight.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market

    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on 
the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, 
provided that, among other things, the merchandise is sold in 
sufficient quantities in the home market (or has sufficient aggregate 
value, if quantity is inappropriate) and that there is no particular 
market situation in the home market that prevents a proper comparison 
with the EP transaction. The statute provides that the total quantity 
of home market sales of foreign like product (or value) will normally 
be considered sufficient if it is five percent or more of the aggregate 
quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United 
States. Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market 
sales of foreign like product and U.S. sales of subject merchandise by 
Delsa, we determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold in 
Spain is more than five percent of the quantity of U.S. sales of 
subject merchandise. Accordingly, for Delsa, we based NV on home market 
(HM) sales. We have excluded HM sales of Dichlor from our analysis for 
the purposes of the preliminary determination. For additional 
information, see Products Memorandum.
    In calculating NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the 
``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home-Market Prices'' and 
``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value'' sections 
below.

B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test

    Delsa reported that it sold chlorinated isos in the comparison 
market only to unaffiliated customers. Therefore, application of the 
arm's-length test is unnecessary.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    In the original petition, the petitioners alleged that sales of 
chlorinated isos in the home market were made at prices below the fully 
absorbed COP and, accordingly, requested that the Department conduct a 
country-wide sales-below-cost investigation. Based upon the comparison 
of the petition's adjusted prices and COP for the foreign like product, 
and in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we found 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of chlorinated isos 
in Spain were made at prices below the COP. See Initiation Notice. As a 
result, the Department has conducted an investigation to determine 
whether Desla made sales in the home market at prices below its COP 
during the POI within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. Our COP 
analysis is described below.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP for Delsa based on the sum of the cost of 
materials and fabrication of the foreign like product, plus amounts for 
the home market general and administrative (G&A) expenses and interest 
expenses. We relied on the submitted COP data, except as noted below:
    We made the following adjustments to Delsa's submitted COP data: 
(1) We adjusted Delsa's reported cost of chlorine gas to reflect the 
average market price in accordance with 19 CFR 351.407(b); (2) we 
revised the startup period, used in the calculation of Delsa's startup 
adjustment, from the reported start-up period. We also revised the 
startup adjustment calculation to reflect only those production costs 
incurred at the Sabi[ntilde][aacute]nigo plant (i.e., the plant that 
incurred the start-up costs); (3) because the Department considers 
labor expenses to be variable expenses (i.e., expenses that vary 
depending upon production levels), we reclassified Delsa's labor 
expenses from its reported fixed costs to variable costs; (4) we 
adjusted Delsa's calculation of its G&A expense ratio by adding certain 
G&A expenses to the numerator of the ratio.

[[Page 75905]]

Because packing expenses were included in Delsa's reported materials 
costs, we added packing costs to the denominator of Delsa's G&A expense 
ratio; and (5) we adjusted Delsa's interest expense ratio by adding the 
Uralita Group's net foreign exchange losses to the numerator of the 
interest expense ratio. See Memorandum from LaVonne Clark, Case 
Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director of the Office of Accounting, 
``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for 
the Preliminary Determination,'' dated December 10, 2004 (Cost 
Calculation Memorandum), for additional information.
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
    As required by section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we compared Delsa's 
adjusted weighted-average COP, on a product-specific basis, to the HM 
prices, less any applicable movement charges, taxes, rebates, 
commissions, and other direct and indirect selling expenses to 
determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. 
For those sales that we determined were made below COP, we examined 
whether they had been made within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. 
See section 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, when less than 
20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices 
less than the COP, we did 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. When 20 percent or more 
of the respondent's sales of a given product during the POI were at 
prices less than the COP, we determined that the below-cost sales were 
made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time 
pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. In such cases, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales because, based on comparisons of 
prices to weighted-average COPs for the POI, we determined that these 
sales were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on this test, we disregarded below-cost 
sales. See Cost Calculation Memorandum, for additional information.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices

    We determined price-based NVs for Delsa as follows. Where 
applicable, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as for differences in 
circumstances of sale (COS) attributed to imputed credit expenses in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410. We also made adjustments for billing adjustments (early 
payment discounts and quantity rebates). In addition, we deducted HM 
movement expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We 
also made adjustments, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect 
selling expenses incurred on HM or U.S. sales where commissions were 
granted on sales in one market but not in the other (the commission 
offset). Finally, we deducted HM packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B)(i) of the Act. We 
used the amounts reported by Delsa for packing even though these 
amounts include the cost of tableting (which is appropriately 
considered a cost of manufacture) because Delsa did not provide a 
breakdown of its tableting and packing cost. See Memorandum from Paige 
Rivas, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, to the File, 
``Calculation Memorandum for Aragonesas Delsa S.A.,'' dated December 
10, 2004 (Sales Calculation Memorandum).
    We made the following adjustments to the expenses reported by 
Delsa. First, we recalculated credit expense for two home market sales 
by assigning the date of the Delsa's last supplemental response 
(December 2, 2004) as the payment date for these unpaid sales. Second, 
we recalculated the movement expenses on several sales to include 
freight expenses associated with the return of subject merchandise for 
the corresponding invoices and customers. See Sales Calculation 
Memorandum.

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that, where NV cannot be 
based on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, 
for those models of chlorinated isos for which we could not determine 
the NV based on comparison-market sales, either because there were no 
sales of a comparable product or all sales of the comparison products 
failed the COP test, we based NV on CV.
    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) and (e)(2)(A) of the Act, we 
calculated CV based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication 
for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling expenses, G&A, 
interest, profit and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the cost of 
materials and fabrication based on the methodology described in the 
``Calculation of Cost of Production'' section of this notice. In 
accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based selling 
expenses, G&A, and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by 
Delsa, in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like 
product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the foreign 
country.

F. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we determined NV based on sales in the HM market at 
the same level of trade (LOT) as the U.S. sales. The NV LOT is that of 
the starting-price sale in the HM market or, when the NV is based on 
CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. 
For EP sales, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price 
sale, which is usually the price of the sale from the exporter to the 
importer.
    To determine whether HM market sales are at a different LOT 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. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Different 
stages of marketing necessarily involve differences in selling 
functions, but differences in selling functions, even substantial ones, 
are not alone sufficient to establish a difference in the LOT. 
Similarly, while customer categories such as ``distributor'' and 
``wholesaler'' may be useful in identifying different LOTs, they are 
insufficient in themselves to establish that there is a difference in 
the LOT.
    If the HM sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects 
price comparability with U.S. sales, as manifested in a pattern of 
consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and 
HM sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT 
adjustment pursuant to 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).
    To determine whether an LOT adjustment is warranted, we obtained 
information from Delsa about the

[[Page 75906]]

marketing stages at which its reported U.S. and HM sales were made, 
including a description of the selling activities performed by Delsa 
for its one channel of distribution, i.e., from the Sabi[ntilde]anigo 
plant directly to the customer. In identifying LOTs for EP and HM 
sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in the starting 
price before any adjustments. Generally, if the 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.
    In conducting our LOT analysis, we took into account the specific 
customer types, channels of distribution, and selling functions. We 
preliminarily determine that in both the comparison and U.S. markets, 
two LOTs exist for Delsa's sales.\3\ The two LOTs in each market are 
attributed to the two different types of Delsa's customers, industrial 
customers and retail level customers. The differences in the LOTs are 
based on the higher level of selling activity associated with the 
retail level customers in comparison to the industrial customers. For 
example, Delsa states that its retail level customers require 
significantly more services, including frequent visits to new retail 
level customers or potential customers, more frequent placement of 
orders in smaller quantities, and more frequent rebates, than 
industrial customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We note that Delsa reported two LOTs in each market in its 
questionnaire responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, after comparing the customer types and selling 
functions associated with Delsa's HM sales to the customer types and 
selling functions associated with its U.S. sales, we determine that 
each LOT in the U.S. market had a corresponding LOT in the HM and the 
selling activities between the corresponding LOTs were virtually 
identical in each market. The industrial users in both the U.S. market 
and HM constitute one LOT and the retail level customers in both the 
U.S. market and HM constitute another LOT. For the industrial user LOT, 
the selling functions in the U.S. market and the HM were identical and 
at identical levels of activity except for two selling functions, i.e., 
rebates and commissions. For the retail level LOT, the selling 
functions in the U.S. market and HM were identical and at identical 
levels of activity except for one selling function, i.e., rebates. 
Accordingly, we made comparisons at the same LOT, and, therefore, it 
was not necessary to make an LOT adjustment. For a further discussion 
of our LOT analysis, see the Memorandum from Paige Rivas, Senior 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Holly A. Kuga, Senior Office 
Director for Office IV, ``Level of Trade Analysis: Aragonesas Delsa 
S.A.'' dated December 10, 2004.

G. Currency Conversions

    We made currency conversions to 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 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.

All Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides for the use of an ``all 
others'' rate, which is applied to non-investigated firms. See 
Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, Vol. I 
(1994). This section states that the all others rate shall generally be 
an amount equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established for 
exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero 
and de minimis margins, and any margins based entirely upon the facts 
available. Therefore, we have preliminarily assigned to all other 
exporters of chlorinated isos from Spain a margin that is based on the 
margin calculated for the mandatory respondent.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing 
CBP to suspend liquidation of all shipments of chlorinated isos from 
Spain that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on 
or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register. We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting 
of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds 
the U.S. price, as indicated below. These suspension-of-liquidation 
instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The weighted-
average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delsa.......................................................       12.13
All Others..................................................       12.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    The Department will disclose to the parties to the proceeding the 
calculations performed in the preliminary determination within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.224(b).

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary sales at LTFV determination. If our final 
antidumping determination is affirmative, section 735(b)(2) of the Act 
requires that the ITC makes a final determination on whether imports of 
chlorinated isos from Spain are materially injuring or threatening 
material injury to the U.S. industry before the later of 120 days after 
the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the date of 
our final determination. Because we have postponed the deadline for the 
final determination to 135 days from the date of publication of this 
preliminary determination, the ITC will make its final determination 
within 45 days of our final determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than 
one week after the issuance of the verification report. Rebuttal briefs 
must be filed within five days after the deadline for submission of 
case briefs. 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, the Department respectfully 
requests that all parties submitting written comments also provide the 
Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such 
comments on diskette.
    Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a 
hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 
hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing 
is made in an investigation, the hearing normally will be held two days 
after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, 
date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
in a hearing

[[Page 75907]]

if one is requested, must submit a written request within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of 
participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
    As noted above, the Department will make its final determination 
within 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary 
determination.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to section 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 10, 2004.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
 [FR Doc. E4-3742 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P