[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 43 (Monday, March 7, 2005)]
[Pages 10957-10962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-920]



International Trade Administration


Low Enriched Uranium From France: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Low Enriched 
Uranium (LEU) from France in response to requests by USEC Inc. and the 
United States Enrichment Corporation (collectively, petitioners) and by 
Eurodif, S.A.(Eurodif), Compagnie G[eacute]n[eacute]rale Des 
Mati[egrave]res Nucl[eacute]aires (COGEMA) and COGEMA, Inc. 
(collectively, Eurodif/COGEMA or the respondent). This review covers 
sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of 
February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004.
    We have preliminarily determined that U.S. sales have been made 
below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in 
our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the 
constructed export price (CEP) and the NV. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results.

[[Page 10958]]

See the Preliminary Results of Review section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2005.

Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2371 or (202) 482-0197, respectively.


    On February 13, 2002, the Department published the antidumping duty 
order on LEU from France in the Federal Register (67 FR 6680). On 
February 3, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity to 
request an administrative review of this order (69 FR 5125). On 
February 4, 2004 and February 26, 2004, respectively, the Department 
received timely requests for review from Eurodif/COGEMA and from 
petitioners. On March 26, 2004, we published a notice initiating an 
administrative review of the antidumping order on LEU from France 
covering one respondent, Eurodif/COGEMA. See Initiation of Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for 
Revocation in Part, 69 FR 15788 (March 26, 2004).
    The Department issued its original questionnaire, sections A 
through D, on April 14, 2004, and received timely responses. On October 
28, 2004, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary 
results of this antidumping duty administrative review until February 
28, 2005. See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium from 
France, 69 FR 62867 (October 28, 2004).
    On October 29, 2004, pursuant to an allegation filed by 
petitioners, the Department initiated an investigation to determine 
whether Eurodif/COGEMA's purchases of electricity from 
[Eacute]lectricit[eacute] de France (EdF), an affiliated supplier, 
during the period of review (POR), were made at prices below the cost 
of production (COP). Consequently, on November 4, 2004, and on December 
23, 2004, the Department issued questionnaires on the COP of 
electricity and received timely, although incomplete, responses.
    On December 14, 2004, the petitioners filed comments stating that 
the respondent's costs for research and development (R&D) were under-
reported. The Department is in the process of reviewing the information 
and argument submitted by the petitioners.
    In response to comments filed by petitioners, on February 10, 2005, 
Eurodif/COGEMA filed additional information. On the same day, the 
Department reiterated its request for a reconciliation of the costs of 
electricity from EdF's Summary Annual and Unbundled 2003 Financial 
Statements to the information in the record which was used to calculate 
the per-unit cost of electricity. See Memorandum to File from Myrna 
Lobo, ``Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Low Enriched 
Uranium from France; Team Meeting with Outside Party,'' dated February 
16, 2005, on file in the Central Record Unit, Room B-099 of the Main 
Commerce Building (CRU). Eurodif/COGEMA filed two more submissions on 
the costs of electricity on February 15, 2005, and February 18, 2004, 
respectively. The Department notified all parties that factual 
information would not be accepted after February 18, 2005, unless 
requested by the Department. Parties were also advised that any 
submission filed as of February 22, 2005, would not be considered for 
the preliminary results of review. See Memorandum to File from Maria 
MacKay, Program Manager, ``New Factual Information Deadline,'' dated 
February 23, 2005, on file in the CRU.

Period of Review

    This review covers the period February 1, 2003, through January 31, 

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this order is all low enriched uranium. LEU 
is enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) with a 
U235 product assay of less than 20 percent that has not been 
converted into another chemical form, such as UO2, or 
fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies, regardless of the means by 
which the LEU is produced (including LEU produced through the down-
blending of highly enriched uranium).
    Certain merchandise is outside the scope of this order. 
Specifically, this order does not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride 
with a U\235\ assay of 20 percent or greater, also known as highly 
enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is not covered by the 
scope of this order. For purposes of this order, fabricated uranium is 
defined as enriched uranium dioxide (UO2), whether or not 
contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural uranium 
concentrates (U3O8) with a U\235\ concentration 
of no greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates 
converted into uranium hexafluoride with a U\235\ concentration of no 
greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the scope of this order.
    Also excluded from this order is LEU owned by a foreign utility 
end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user 
solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium 
dioxide (UO2) and/or fabrication into fuel assemblies so 
long as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel assemblies deemed to 
incorporate such imported LEU (i) remain in the possession and control 
of the U.S. fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their designed 
transporter(s) while in U.S. customs territory, and (ii) are re-
exported within eighteen (18) months of entry of the LEU for 
consumption by the end-user in a nuclear reactor outside the United 
States. Such entries must be accompanied by the certifications of the 
importer and end user.
    The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 
2844.20.0020. Subject merchandise may also enter under 2844.20.0030, 
2844.20.0050, and 2844.40.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the merchandise is dispositive.


Home Market Viability

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (the Act), to determine whether there was a 
sufficient volume of sales in the home market and/or in third country 
markets to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared 
Eurodif/COGEMA's volume of home market sales and third country sales of 
the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise. Eurodif/COGEMA did not have any sales in the home market 
during the POR. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the Act and 
section 351.404 (b) of the Department's regulations, because Eurodif/
COGEMA's aggregate volume of sales of the foreign like product both in 
Japan and Sweden was greater than five percent of the aggregate volume 
of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that Japan and 
Sweden are viable markets. However, due to the difficulties involved in 
calculating a difference-in-merchandise adjustment for non-identical 
products, the Department determined to use constructed value (CV) as 
the basis of NV in this review.

[[Page 10959]]

    See Memorandum to Dana Mermelstein from Elfi Blum-Page and Myrna 
Lobo, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Low Enriched Uranium 
(LEU) from France, Market Viability,'' (Viability Memorandum) dated 
December 20, 2004, on file in the CRU.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of LEU from France were made in the 
United States at less-than-fair value (LTFV), we compared the CEP to 
CV, as described in the Constructed Export Price and Calculation of 
Normal Value Based On Constructed Value sections of this notice. In 
accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated CEPs and 
compared them to CV.
    We note that during the POR, the respondent sold LEU in the United 
States pursuant to contracts in which the respondent undertook to 
manufacture and deliver LEU for a cash payment covering only the value 
of the enrichment component; for the natural uranium feedstock 
component, the respondent received an amount of natural uranium 
equivalent to the amount used to produce the LEU shipped (so-called 
separative work unit (SWU) \1\ contracts). However, the product 
manufactured and delivered by the respondent was LEU. For purposes of 
our antidumping analysis, we have translated prices and costs involved 
in SWU contracts to an LEU basis, increasing those values to account 
for the cost of the uranium feedstock involved. These adjustments are 
described in greater detail below.

    \1\ A SWU is a unit of measurement of the effort required to 
separate the U235 and U238 atoms in uranium feed in order to create 
a final product richer in U\235\ atoms.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at 
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in 
the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the 
account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller 
affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated 
with the producer or exporter. During the POR, Eurodif/COGEMA made 
sales to the United States through its U.S. affiliate, COGEMA Inc., 
which then resold the merchandise to unaffiliated customers. Therefore, 
Eurodif/COGEMA classified all of its export sales of LEU as CEP sales.
    As stated in section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations, 
the Department will use the respondent's invoice date as the date of 
sale unless another date better reflects the date upon which the 
exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale. In this 
review, we find that the material terms of sale are set in the contract 
between COGEMA Inc. and the U.S. customer. Therefore, as in the prior 
review, we have used the contract date as the date of sale. See Notice 
of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Low 
Enriched Uranium From France, 69 FR 46501 (August 3, 2004).
    The Department calculated CEP for Eurodif/COGEMA based on packed 
prices to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. For all 
sales, which involved payments on a SWU basis, we translated the prices 
to an LEU basis, as indicated above, by adding a value for the uranium 
feedstock used in the production of the LEU. This value was derived 
from the respondent's reported entered value of feed, which was based 
on publicly available information used for customs entry purposes. We 
made deductions from the starting price, net of discounts, for movement 
expenses (foreign and U.S. movement, shipment of sample assays, 
movement of customer feed from North America to France, marine 
insurance, merchandise processing and U.S. harbor maintenance fees, and 
brokerage) in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act and section 
351.401(e) of the Department's regulations. In addition, in accordance 
with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted credit expenses and 
indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, incurred 
in the United States and France and associated with economic activities 
in the United States.
    Furthermore, in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of 
the Act, we made a deduction for CEP profit. The CEP profit rate is 
normally calculated on the basis of total revenue and total expenses 
related to sales in the comparison market and the U.S. market. In this 
case, we based NV on CV; therefore, there was no home market profit 
from which to derive CEP profit. Consequently, we based CEP profit on 
the total expenses and total revenue related to Eurodif's U.S. and 
third-country sales of LEU. See Memorandum to the File from Myrna Lobo 
and Elfi Blum-Page, ``Analysis of Eurodif/COGEMA for the Preliminary 
Results of the Second Administrative Review of Low Enriched Uranium 
(LEU) from France,'' February 28, 2005 (Prelim Analysis Memo).

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. Because of the 
difficulties involved in calculating a difference-in-merchandise 
adjustment for non-identical products (see the Home Market Viability 
section above), in this review the Department determined to use CV as 
the basis of NV.
    Section 773(e) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the 
sum of the costs of materials and fabrication of the foreign like 
product, plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative expenses 
(SG&A), profit, and U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 
773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, we based general and administrative (G&A) 
expenses on amounts derived from Eurodif's financial statements. In our 
calculation of the interest expense, we based financial expenses on the 
financial statements of COGEMA's parent company, AREVA, which 
represents the highest level of consolidation for Eurodif. For selling 
expenses, we used information on indirect selling expenses in third 
countries, including Japan, provided in the questionnaire response. 
Where appropriate, we made circumstance of sale (COS) adjustments to 
CV, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and section 351.410 
of the Department's regulations.
    We calculated profit in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) 
of the Act and the Statement of Administrative Action regarding the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 
(SAA) 841. A positive amount for profit must be included in the CV. 
There were no home market sales during the POR, and, based on our 
calculations, there is no positive amount of profit with respect to 
third country sales. Thus, we find that it is appropriate to use a 
profit rate based on AREVA's front end division.\2\ AREVA's front end 
division's activities are similar to Eurodif/COGEMA's business 
operations, and, according to AREVA's annual report, a substantial

[[Page 10960]]

percentage of AREVA's front end activities were associated with sales 
outside the United States. These similarities lead us to conclude that 
this is a reasonable method for calculating Eurodif's profit. 
Therefore, lacking other alternatives, we used a CV profit rate based 
on AREVA's front end division. See Prelim Analysis Memo. The profit cap 
under section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act cannot be calculated in this 
case because we do not have information allowing us to calculate the 
amount normally realized by exporters or producers (other than 
respondent) in connection with the sale, for consumption in the foreign 
country, of the merchandise in the same general category.

    \2\ According to AREVA's 2003 Annual Report, the AREVA group 
operates in every area of the nuclear fuel cycle. In the Front End 
of the cycle, it supplies uranium ore, and converts and enriches the 
uranium in order to fabricate the fuel assemblies that go into the 
reactor core. Specifically, the Front End division is in charge of: 
(1) Uranium ore exploration, mining, and treatment (concentration); 
(2) uranium conversion into a chemical form suitable for enrichment; 
(3) uranium 235 enrichment; and (4) fuel fabrication and assembly. 
See Eurodif/COGEMA Supplemental Sections A-D response, dated October 
18, 2004, Exhibit A-66 at page 27.

    Electricity is considered a major input into the production of LEU. 
Eurodif obtained electricity from its affiliated supplier, EdF. On June 
9, 2004, the petitioners alleged that Eurodif purchased electricity 
from EdF at prices less than the affiliated suppliers' COP during the 
POR. After reviewing the allegation, the Department determined that 
petitioners' major input allegation provided a reasonable basis on 
which to initiate an investigation of Eurodif's purchases of 
electricity from EdF. See Memorandum from Myrna Lobo and Elfi Blum-
Page, Case Analysts, to Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office 6, 
``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Low Enriched Uranium from 
France, Petitioners' Allegation of Purchases of a Major Input From 
Electricit[eacute] de France (EdF), an Affiliated Party, at Prices 
Below the Affiliated Party's Cost of Production,'' dated October 29, 
    Section 773(f)(3) of the Act states that ``{i{time} f, in the case 
of a transaction between affiliated persons involving the production by 
one of such persons of a major input to the merchandise, the 
administering authority has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 
that an amount represented as the value of such input is less than the 
cost of production of such input, then the administering authority may 
determine the value of the major input on the basis of the information 
available regarding such cost of production, if such cost is greater 
than the amount that would be determined for such input under paragraph 
(2).'' \3\ In applying the major input rule under Sec.  351.407(b) of 
the Department's regulations, the Department will normally compare the 
transfer price between affiliates to the market price for the input to 
ensure that the transfer price is at least reflective of the market 
price. For major inputs, the Department then compares the transfer 
price and the market price to the COP to ensure that the transfer price 
charged recovers the producer's costs of production. As such, we 
evaluated the affiliated supplier's reported electricity COP.

    \3\ Paragraph 2 of section 773(f) of the Act is the transactions 
disregarded rule.

    On November 4, 2004, the Department solicited information from the 
respondent regarding the calculation of EdF's COP. On December 23, 
2004, we asked for clarification on the significant differences between 
the reported single average cost figure and the expense amounts shown 
in EdF's annual report. As we are unable to ascertain the reconciling 
differences between the reported costs and the costs shown in the 
annual report, we have adjusted EdF's reported cost of producing 
electricity by calculating a single weighted-average cost of producing 
electricity for the POR based on the information from EdF's annual 
report. See Use of Partial Facts Available section below.
    Because the calculated COP for electricity exceeded the transfer 
price Eurodif paid to EdF for the electricity purchased, we calculated 
CV based on the COP of EdF, in accordance with section 773(f)(3) of the 
Act. For a full discussion of the COP of electricity, due to the 
proprietary nature of this information (see Prelim Analysis Memo).

Use of Partial Facts Available

    The Department has determined that the use of partial facts 
available is appropriate for purposes of determining the preliminary 
dumping margin for subject merchandise sold by Eurodif/COGEMA. 
Specifically, as indicated above, the Department has applied partial 
facts available to its CV calculation with respect to electricity, a 
major input into the production of LEU (see Prelim Analysis Memo).
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested 
by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information 
by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form 
and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 
782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this 
subtitle; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot 
be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the administering 
authority shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts 
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this 
    As indicated above, on November 4, 2004, the Department issued a 
questionnaire, requesting that Eurodif/COGEMA provide the actual per-
unit cost of its affiliated electricity supplier and provide worksheets 
demonstrating the derivation of this cost from the affiliated 
supplier's cost accounting system. The Department issued another 
questionnaire on December 23, 2004, requesting that Eurodif/COGEMA 
provide documentary support for the information already provided and to 
reconcile such information to EdF's financial statements. The 
Department's detailed questions concerning the reconciliation of the 
information provided are contained in the public versions of the two 
major input questionnaires, which are on file in the CRU.
    As long recognized by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), 
the burden to create a complete and accurate record is on the 
respondent, not on the Department. See Pistachio Group of the 
Association Food Industries v. United States, 671 F. Supp. 31, 39-40 
(CIT 1987). In its narrative response to the Department's second 
questionnaire, dated January 19, 2005, the respondent indicated that 
this is an unusually pressing and challenging time for EdF's financial 
department and that EdF is in the process of closing its year-end books 
and preparing its annual financial statements. In addition, respondent 
claimed that EdF staff was responding to numerous projects at the 
discretion of its new management and was also preparing for a public 
offering of the company's capital. Eurodif/COGEMA repeatedly stated 
that EdF would provide any further information at verification.
    Eurodif/COGEMA submitted additional information on February 10, 
2005, and a partial cost reconciliation on February 15, 2005, which the 
Department determined to be insufficient. On February 18, 2005, 
Eurodif/COGEMA filed additional information pertaining to EdF's cost 
reconciliation, which the Department still considered to be 
insufficient. At that point, due to the imminent preliminary results of 
review, the Department notified all parties that no new information 
would be accepted unless requested by the Department, and that any 
submission filed as of February 22, 2005, would not be considered for 
these preliminary results. The Department also indicated that it would 
solicit more information from respondent regarding EdF's COP after the 
issuance of the preliminary results and that it would revisit the 

[[Page 10961]]

cost calculation in computing the CV for the final results of this 
    Consequently, for these preliminary results, the Department has 
determined that Eurodif/COGEMA has not cooperated to the best of its 
ability in responding to the Department's request for information. In 
accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act, we are 
applying partial facts otherwise available in calculating Eurodif/
COGEMA's dumping margin. As facts available, the Department has used a 
COP for electricity calculated on the basis of EdF's 2003 financial 
statements. See Prelim Analysis Memo.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the U.S. sales. See section 
351.412(c)(1)(ii) of the Department's regulations. The LOT of the sales 
on which NV is based is the level of the starting-price sale in the 
comparison market; when NV is based on CV, the LOT is the level of the 
sales from which we derive SG&A and profit. For CEP, the U.S. LOT is 
the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. 
See Sec.  351.412 of the Department's regulations.
    Generally, to determine whether the sales on which NV is based are 
at a different LOT than the CEP sales, 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 LOT, 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 at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT 
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the 
NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there 
is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels 
between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes 
From Canada, 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 2002); see also Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997). 
For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the 
price after the deduction of certain expenses and CEP profit under 
section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology Inc. v. United States, 
243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We expect that, if the 
claimed LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller 
should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that the LOTs are 
different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities 
of the seller should be dissimilar. See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware 
from Mexico: Final Results of Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 
10, 2000).
    In the current review, Eurodif/COGEMA provided information about 
the marketing stages involved in the reported U.S. sales, as well as in 
the home market and in third countries, including a description of the 
selling activities performed by the respondent for each channel of 
distribution. Given that all U.S. sales were CEP sales, we considered 
only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction 
of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act.
    In the U.S. market, the respondent sells to utility customers 
through one channel of distribution. After deducting expenses 
associated with the selling activities reflected in the price under 
section 772(d) of the Act (i.e., the expenses of COGEMA Inc.), we 
examined the remaining selling expenses which were associated with such 
activities as strategic planning and marketing, customer sales contact, 
production planning and evaluation, contract administration, pricing, 
and quality assurance. These expenses were provided through one U.S. 
channel of distribution. Therefore, we found all U.S. sales to be made 
at a single LOT.
    Because Eurodif/COGEMA had sales to third countries during the POR, 
we based our LOT analysis on Eurodif/COGEMA's third country sales. For 
such sales, the evidence on the record indicates that eight of the 13 
categories of selling functions Eurodif performs are at the same level 
of activity, and five are performed at differing levels of activity, 
compared to sales to the United States.\4\ Accordingly, we find that 
Eurodif generally performs the same kinds of selling functions and, in 
most cases, at the same level of intensity in both markets, the United 
States and third countries. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that 
Eurodif/COGEMA's sales to the United States and to third countries are 
made at the same LOT. Accordingly, we have made no LOT adjustment or 
CEP offset in our margin calculation program for these preliminary 
results. For a more detailed discussion, see Prelim Analysis Memo.

    \4\ See Eurodif/COGEMA's Section A questionnaire response dated 
May 18, 2004, at page A-20 to A-25 and Exhibit A-4.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions pursuant to section 351.415 of the 
Department's regulations based on rates certified by the Federal 
Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin 

                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
Eurodif/COGEMA..............................................       21.71

Public Comment

    Pursuant to section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations, the 
Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations 
performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days 
after the date of publication of this notice. Pursuant to section 
351.309 of the Department's regulations, interested parties may submit 
written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless 
extended by the Department, case briefs are to be submitted within 30 
days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, 
limited to arguments raised in case briefs, are to be submitted no 
later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. 
Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit 
with the argument: (1) A statement of the issues, and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on 
interested parties in accordance with section 351.303(f) of the 
Department's regulations.
    Also, pursuant to section 351.310 (c) of the Department's 
regulations, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, 
interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be 
raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies 
otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the 
date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Parties will be notified of the 
time and location.
    The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any case or rebuttal brief, no later than 120 days after 
publication of these preliminary results, unless extended. See section 
351.213(h) of the Department's regulations.

Duty Assessment

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to

[[Page 10962]]

section 351.212(b) of the Department's regulations, the Department 
calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject 
merchandise for each respondent. The Department will issue appropriate 
assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication 
of the final results of review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit rates will be effective with respect to 
all shipments of LEU from France entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, 
as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For Eurodif/
COGEMA, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final 
results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated 
companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the company-
specific rate established for the most recent period; (3) if the 
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the 
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 subject merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the 
manufacturer is a firm covered by this review, a prior review, or the 
LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate shall be the all other rate 
established in the LTFV investigation, which is 19.95 percent. See 
Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Antidumping Duty Order: Low Enriched Uranium fro France, 67 FR 6680 
(February 13, 2002). These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations 
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 administrative review and notice are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 28, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-920 Filed 3-4-05; 8:45 am]