[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 10, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24506-24510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-2236]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-469-814]


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

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') has determined 
that chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain are being sold, or are likely 
to be sold, in the United States at less than fair value (``LTFV''), as 
provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Final 
Determination of Investigation'' section of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: May 10, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin and Mark Manning, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3936 or (202) 482-5253, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Case History

    On December 20, 2004, the Department published the preliminary 
determination of sales at LTFV in the antidumping investigation of 
chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain. See Chlorinated Isocyanurates 
From Spain: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 69 FR 75902 
(December 20, 2004) (``Preliminary Determination''). Since the 
Preliminary Determination, the following events have occurred.
    On January 12, 2005, the petitioners \1\ submitted a request for a 
public hearing. We conducted verification of the sales and cost 
questionnaire responses of Aragonesas Delsa S.A. (``Delsa''), the sole 
respondent in this investigation, from January 31, 2005, through 
February 11, 2005. On February 17, 2005, Delsa submitted revised sales 
data resulting

[[Page 24507]]

from corrections made at verification. We gave interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on our Preliminary Determination and our 
findings at verification. On March 15, 2005, the petitioners and 
respondent submitted case briefs, and on March 22, 2005, these parties 
submitted rebuttal briefs. The Department held a public hearing on 
March 29, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in this investigation are Clearon 
Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation (collectively, the 
``petitioners'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 2003, through 
March 31, 2004. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are chlorinated 
isocyanurates. Chlorinated isocyanurates are derivatives of cyanuric 
acid, described as chlorinated s-triazine triones. There are three 
primary chemical compositions of chlorinated isocyanurates: (1) 
Trichloroisocyanuric acid (Cl3(NCO)3), (2) sodium 
dichloroisocyanurate (dihydrate) (NaCl2(NCO)3 
2H2O), and (3) sodium dichloroisocyanurate (anhydrous) 
(NaCl2(NCO)3). Chlorinated isocyanurates are 
available in powder, granular, and tableted forms. This investigation 
covers all chlorinated isocyanurates.
    Chlorinated isocyanurates are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, and 2933.69.6050 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'').\2\ The 
tariff classification 2933.69.6015 covers sodium dichloroisocyanurates 
(anhydrous and dihydrate forms) and trichloroisocyanuric acid. The 
tariff classifications 2933.69.6021 and 2933.69.6050 represent basket 
categories that include chlorinated isocyanurates and other compounds 
including an unfused triazine ring. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In the scope section of the Department's initiation and in 
its Preliminary Determination, chlorinated isocyanurates were 
classified under subheading 2933.69.6050 of the HTSUS. See 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Chlorinated 
Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China and Spain, 69 FR 
32488 (June 10, 2004). Effective January 1, 2005, chlorinated 
isocyanurates are also currently classifiable under new subheadings 
2933.69.6015 and 2933.69.6021 of the HTSUS. The new subheading 
2933.69.6015 covers sodium dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and 
dihydrate forms) and trichloroisocyanuric acid, while subheading 
2933.69.6021 covers all other chlorinated isocyanurates used as 
pesticides (bactericides). Subheading 2933.69.6050 covers all other 
chlorinated isocyanurates not used as pesticides. See Memorandum to 
James Doyle, Office 9, dated February 16, 2005, from Tom Futtner, 
Liaison w/Customs, Customs Unit, regarding Request for HTS Number 
Update(s) to AD/CVD Module Chlorinated Isos (A-570-898) (added to 
the record of the instant investigation in Memorandum from Thomas 
Martin to the File, dated April 25, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope Comments

    On July 1, 2004, Arch Chemicals, Inc. (``Arch''), an importer, 
argued that its patented, formulated, chlorinated isocyanurates tablet 
is not covered by the scope of this investigation. In the Preliminary 
Determination, we found that Arch's patented chlorinated isocyanurates 
tablet is included within the scope of this antidumping duty 
investigation.
    See Preliminary Determination, and Memorandum from Holly A. Kuga, 
Senior Office Director, 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. We received no further 
comments from any interested party regarding our preliminary decision 
on this issue. Therefore, for this final determination, we find that 
Arch's patented chlorinated isocyanurates tablet is included within the 
scope of this antidumping duty investigation.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the 
Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Memorandum from Barbara E. 
Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final 
Determination in the Antidumping Investigation of Chlorinated 
Isocyanurates from Spain,'' (``Issues and Decision Memorandum'') dated 
concurrently with this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice. 
Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this 
investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public 
memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of 
the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete 
version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly 
on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/list.html. The 
paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum 
are identical in content.

Partial Adverse Facts Available

A. Use of Facts Available

    As further discussed below, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(B) and 
(C), and 776(b) of the Act, the Department determines that the 
application of partial adverse facts available (``AFA'') is warranted 
for Delsa's home market (``HM'') inland freight and U.S. market 
movement expenses. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if an 
interested party (A) withholds information that has been requested by 
the Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely 
manner or in the form or manner requested, subject to sections 
782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding 
under the antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to 
subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching 
the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that 
the Department must inform the interested party of the nature of any 
deficiency in its response and, to the extent practicable, allow the 
interested party to remedy or explain such deficiency. Pursuant to 
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not decline to consider 
submitted information if all of the following requirements are met: (1) 
The information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the 
information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete 
that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable 
determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted 
to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without 
undue difficulties.
    We find that pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, 
we should apply facts available to Delsa's HM inland freight and U.S. 
market movement expenses (consisting of foreign inland freight, foreign 
brokerage and handling, international freight, and U.S. brokerage and 
handling) because (1) Delsa failed to accurately and timely report 
these expenses; (2) Delsa took action that further impeded the 
Department's ability to conduct the proceeding; and (3) Delsa provided 
information that could not be verified.
    With respect to HM inland freight, Delsa stated in its initial and 
first supplemental section B questionnaire responses that it reported 
its HM inland freight using an allocation methodology. See August 23, 
2004, Section B submission at 11 and September 29, 2004, first 
supplemental Section B submission at 7. In our second

[[Page 24508]]

supplemental questionnaire, we instructed Delsa to provide a full 
explanation of the allocation methodology and explain why it represents 
a reasonable allocation. Delsa provided a one sentence answer in its 
second supplemental response: ``We have revised our home market sales 
file with the actual amount of freight for each transaction.'' See 
November 22, 2004, second supplemental Section B submission at 3. 
(Emphasis added). Furthermore, Delsa reiterated in its third 
supplemental questionnaire response that it reported actual HM inland 
freight expenses. See December 2, 2004, third supplemental 
questionnaire submission at 4. Given that Delsa stated that it reported 
the actual amount of freight for each transaction, the Department 
concluded that Delsa no longer used an allocation methodology.
    However, at verification, Delsa stated that it had incorrectly 
reported to the Department that it was submitting actual transaction-
specific freight cost data for its HM sales, and instead submitted a 
worksheet that provided a limited overview of its allocation 
methodology. At verification, the Department tested the results of this 
allocation methodology against actual costs in selected sales and found 
the discrepancies between the actual and allocated freight to be so 
great as to indicate that the allocation methodology does not result in 
per-unit expenses that reasonably approximate the actual expenses. At 
no point in this investigation, prior to verification, did Delsa notify 
the Department that it had any difficulties complying with the 
Department's requests for information. Delsa did not seek guidance on 
the applicable reporting requirements as contemplated by section 
782(c)(1) of the Act. Instead, Delsa only reported at the start of 
verification that it had reported its HM inland freight expenses using 
an allocation methodology, after reporting in its last two supplemental 
questionnaire responses that it was providing actual HM inland freight 
expenses for each sale. Based on the above, we find that Delsa failed 
to provide accurate and timely information in the form and manner 
requested by the Department, within the meaning of section 776(a)(2)(B) 
of the Act.
    See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3.
    In addition, Delsa's failure to provide accurate and timely 
information concerning its HM freight expenses prevented the Department 
from requesting supplemental information regarding these expenses. 
Without this information, we were unable to satisfy ourselves that the 
information reported was complete and accurate. Since the Department 
does not accept new information at verification, and this allocation 
methodology was new information, we were precluded from verifying the 
specifics of how Delsa allocated its freight costs. Delsa thus took 
specific action to prevent the Department from determining the 
reliability of central elements of its responses, thereby impeding the 
proceeding. This action warrants the application of facts available 
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act.
    In regard to Delsa's U.S. movement expenses, Delsa reported to the 
Department in its questionnaire responses that it reported the actual 
costs that it was charged by its freight forwarder. The Department made 
supplemental requests for information regarding these movement 
expenses, and Delsa made corrections and provided explanations. See, 
e.g., September 29, 2004, supplemental section C submission at Exhibits 
C-7a and C-7b. However, Delsa reported at the beginning of the 
Department's verification that it made multiple errors affecting three 
reported movement expenses (foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage 
and handling, and international freight), with an undetermined, varying 
impact on each sale. Specifically, the errors were (1) failure to take 
account of containers that were only partially filled; (2) failure to 
take account of the decrease in freight charges on larger volume 
transactions; (3) failure to report the costs from another freight 
forwarding company that was used during the POI; (4) failure to account 
for changes that took place in the freight fee schedules; (5) failure 
to report the correct foreign inland freight for sales that originated 
from one of its factories; and (6) failure to account for weight 
differences in allocating costs to containers that held a mix of 
products that vary by weight. These errors affect a large number of 
U.S. sales and have an overlapping effect, so that the Department is 
unable to separately analyze the errors on an individual basis. 
Moreover, these errors have a large impact on the reported per-unit 
expenses for each variable. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 4. Furthermore, Delsa reported its U.S. brokerage and handling 
expenses for the first time at verification, even though Delsa denied 
having the ability to report this expense in its initial and first 
supplemental questionnaire responses. Delsa did not seek guidance 
concerning this expense on the applicable reporting requirements, as 
contemplated by section 782(c)(1) of the Act.
    Based on the above, for its U.S. movement expenses (consisting of 
foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international 
freight, and U.S. brokerage and handling), we find that Delsa failed to 
provide requested information before the established deadlines and in 
the form and manner requested by the Department, within the meaning of 
section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act.
    We further find that Delsa has significantly impeded the proceeding 
by providing changes to all of its U.S. movement expenses at the start 
of verification that significantly affect a large quantity of U.S. 
sales and have a large impact on the reported per-unit expenses. 
Calculation of U.S. movement expenses is necessary to the Department's 
calculation of net U.S. prices, which is in turn necessary to calculate 
accurate dumping margins. The information is in the respondent's 
possession and cannot otherwise be obtained by the Department. 
Therefore, we find that Delsa has significantly impeded the proceeding 
within the meaning of section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act.
    Furthermore, with respect to both HM inland freight and U.S. market 
movement expenses, Delsa has not met the requirements of sections 
782(d) and (e) of the Act. Section 782(d) of the Act is not applicable 
because Delsa did not provide enough information to the Department to 
indicate that its reporting methodology for these HM and U.S. movement 
expenses might be deficient until the start of verification. It was not 
until verification that the Department was aware of the use of an 
allocation methodology for HM inland freight and the extent of the 
errors (i.e., in terms of quantity and volume) in Delsa's reported U.S. 
movement expenses. By this time, it was too late to notify Delsa of any 
deficiencies, obtain the allocation methodologies and possibly new 
data, and examine such methodologies and data for deficiencies.
    Similarly, section 782(e) of the Act has also not been satisfied 
because Delsa failed to submit before the deadlines established by the 
Department reasonably accurate HM inland freight and U.S. movement 
expenses. In its response to the Department's second supplemental 
questionnaire, when the Department requested detailed information 
regarding Delsa's HM inland freight expense and U.S. movement expense 
reporting methodologies, Delsa reported that it provided actual HM 
expenses and U.S. market movement expenses based upon its freight 
schedules. At that time, Delsa did not acknowledge that its HM inland

[[Page 24509]]

freight costs were, in fact, reported on an allocated basis. For U.S. 
movement expenses, Delsa reported significantly inaccurate U.S. 
movement expenses, due to its failure to go beyond the freight 
schedules, and take into account divergences from the scheduled fees. 
These statements by Delsa prevented the Department from asking 
additional questions about the methodology that Delsa actually did use. 
Thus, Delsa has failed to satisfy the requirements of subsections (1) 
and (2) of section 782(e).

B. Adverse Inferences

    Once the Department determines that the use of facts available is 
warranted, the Department must then determine whether an adverse 
inference is warranted pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, which 
permits the Department to apply an adverse inference if it makes the 
additional finding that an interested party has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's 
requests for information.
    In determining whether a respondent has failed to cooperate to the 
best of its ability, the Department need not make a determination 
regarding the willfulness of the respondent's conduct. Nippon Steel 
Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Instead, 
the courts have made clear that the Department must articulate its 
reasons for concluding that a party failed to cooperate to the best of 
its ability, and explain why the missing information is significant to 
the review. In determining whether a party failed to cooperate to the 
best of its ability, the Department considers whether a party could 
comply with the request for information, and whether a party paid 
sufficient attention to its statutory duties. Pacific Giant, Inc. v. 
United States, 223 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1342 (CIT 2002); see also Tung 
Mung Dev. Co. v. United States, 2001 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 94 at 89 
(July 3, 2001). The Department also considers whether there is at issue 
a ``pattern of behavior.'' Borden, Inc. v. United States, 22 C.I.T. 
1153 (CIT 1998)
    As discussed below, we determine that, within the meaning of 
section 776(b) of the Act, Delsa failed to cooperate by not acting to 
the best of its ability to comply with the Department's request for 
information by not providing it with timely and accurate HM inland 
freight and U.S. movement expenses, and that the application of partial 
AFA is therefore warranted. On more than one occasion, Delsa failed to 
provide information when requested to do so by the Department. 
Specifically, Delsa misrepresented the nature of its HM inland freight 
data in its last two supplemental questionnaire responses by reporting 
to the Department that for its HM sales, it reported actual, 
transaction-specific inland freight costs. This precluded the 
Department from making supplemental requests for information regarding 
the allocation methodology that it did use. Delsa's misrepresentation 
prevented the Department from issuing supplemental questions that might 
otherwise have resulted in changes to the methodology, to make the 
methodology reasonable, such that the Department could have accepted 
it. In its questionnaire responses, Delsa did not provide evidence to 
support its allocation methodology, as it is required to do pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.401(g)(2). Delsa failed to fully demonstrate that it could 
not provide its HM freight on an actual, transaction-specific basis. 
Moreover, Delsa failed to demonstrate that its allocation methodology 
did not yield distortive or inaccurate results. Without accurately 
reported expenses and costs, the Department is unable to calculate 
accurate net HM prices, which prevents the Department from calculating 
accurate dumping margins. We find that Delsa did not act to the best of 
its ability in reporting HM inland freight expenses, and therefore an 
adverse inference is warranted. As partial AFA, we are applying the 
lowest verified inland freight cost to all HM sales made by Delsa 
during the POI, except for those sales examined at verification and 
sales of a particular CONNUM for which Delsa provided actual, invoiced 
freight expenses during verification (and the Department successfully 
tested for accuracy). A complete explanation of the selection and 
application of partial AFA can be found in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 3.
    Delsa also failed to accurately report its U.S. movement expenses 
(consisting of foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, 
and international freight), despite having three opportunities to do so 
in response to the Department's initial and supplemental 
questionnaires. Delsa reported corrections to multiple errors with 
respect to these variables at the Department's verification. Since each 
of these errors affect more than one movement variable, the overall 
impact of these errors on the reported variables is actually a net 
change resulting in increases and decreases of Delsa's reported U.S. 
movement expenses. Because (1) There were six errors affecting three 
variables, (2) the separate effect of each individual error cannot be 
determined with information on the record, as Delsa only provided the 
Department with the net effect of all of the errors, (3) the errors 
affect a large quantity of U.S. sales, and (4) the impact of these 
errors on the reported per-unit expense is also large, the corrections 
for these errors cannot be considered as minor corrections to the U.S. 
sales database. In addition, U.S. brokerage and handling was an expense 
that Delsa reported that it did not have until the Department's 
verification, even though the Department asked supplemental questions 
on this topic. The Court of International Trade has found that the 
``respondent bears the burden of creating a complete and adequate 
record upon which the Department can make its determination.'' See NSK 
Ltd. v. United States, 919 F. Supp. 442, 449 (CIT 1996). See also 
Tianjin Mach. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 353 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 
1305 (CIT 2004) (``Although the standard does not demand perfection, it 
censures inattentiveness and carelessness.''). Therefore, the 
Department determines that Delsa failed to act to the best of its 
ability, and thus determines that partial adverse facts is warranted in 
this case. As partial AFA, we have selected the highest non-
aberrational reported freight cost for all four U.S. freight variables. 
We have applied these per-unit expenses to all U.S. sales made by Delsa 
during the POI, except for those sales that were examined at 
verification. A complete explanation of the selection and application 
of partial AFA can be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 4.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the 
information submitted by Delsa for use in our final determination. We 
used standard verification procedures including examination of relevant 
accounting and production records, and original source documents 
provided by the respondent.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our findings at verification, and analysis of comments 
received, we have made certain adjustments to the margin calculations 
used in the Preliminary Determination. These adjustments are discussed 
in detail in the Issues and Decision Memorandum and are listed below:
    1. We corrected a clerical error with respect to our recalculation 
of HM credit expense.
    2. We corrected a clerical error regarding the customer code used 
to allocate certain freight expenses incurred by Delsa for defective

[[Page 24510]]

merchandise returned from the United States. In addition, although not 
a clerical error, we changed the allocation methodology to ensure a 
more appropriate allocation of these expenses. Lastly, we added U.S. 
brokerage and handling expenses to this calculation.
    3. We applied partial AFA to Delsa's HM inland freight for sales 
that are not based upon actual, transaction-specific costs, and which 
have not been specifically verified.
    4. We applied partial AFA to Delsa's foreign inland freight, 
foreign brokerage and handling, and international freight for all U.S. 
sales that have not been specifically verified.
    5. We applied AFA to Delsa's U.S. brokerage and handling expenses 
that were reported for the first time during verification.
    6. We revised the interest rate used in calculating U.S. credit 
expenses to the correct POI-average Federal Reserve rate.
    7. We eliminated the second rebate variable from Delsa's HM price 
adjustments, pursuant to a minor correction that Delsa submitted at 
verification.
    8. We recalculated Delsa's packaging costs to equal the packaging 
and packing costs reported for the Preliminary Determination less the 
packing expenses identified at verification. Accordingly, we revised 
the reported packing expenses to equal the packing expenses identified 
at verification. Since Delsa packs its products in an identical manner 
regardless of the market to which they are sold, we used the same 
values for packing in the home and U.S. markets.
    9. We recalculated the adjustments to certain raw material costs 
based on the comparison of Delsa's reported transfer prices and market 
prices obtained at verification.
    10. We adjusted the startup period for purposes of determining the 
amount, if any, of the startup adjustment.
    11. We recalculated Delsa's financial expense ratio to include net 
foreign exchange losses in the numerator.

Final Determination of Investigation

    We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins 
exist for the period April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Weighted-Average
             Manufacturer/exporter                   Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aragonesas Delsa S.A...........................                    24.83
All Others.....................................                    24.83
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue to suspend 
liquidation of all entries of chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain that 
are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
December 20, 2004, the date of publication of the Preliminary 
Determination in the Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to continue 
to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond for each entry equal 
to the weighted-average dumping margins in the chart above. These 
instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further 
notice.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our determination. As our 
final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine, within 45 
days, whether these imports are causing material injury, or threat of 
material injury, to an industry in the United States. If the ITC 
determines that material injury or threat of injury does not exist, the 
proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be 
refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does 
exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing 
CBP officials to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the 
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of 
liquidation.

Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 
notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to 
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with 
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 735(d) and 777(I) of the Act.

    Dated: May 2, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--Issues and Decision Memorandum

Part I: Corrections to the Preliminary Calculations:
    Comment 1: Corrections to the Preliminary Calculations.
Part II: Home Market (``HM'') Sales Issues:
    Comment 2: Whether Delsa's Allocation Methodology for HM Inland 
Freight Results in Unreliable Allocations.
    Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Apply Partial Adverse 
Facts Available (``AFA'') to Delsa's HM Inland Freight.
Part III: United States Sales Issues:
    Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Apply Partial AFA to 
Delsa's Foreign Inland Freight, Foreign Brokerage and Handling, 
International Freight Expenses, and U.S. Brokerage and Handling 
Expenses.
    Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Apply the Calculated 
U.S. Average Short-Term Borrowing Rate to All U.S. Sales.
Part IV: Cost of Production (``COP'') Issues:
    Comment 6: Whether the Department Double Counted Delsa's 
Reported Packaging and Packing Costs in the Preliminary 
Determination.
    Comment 7: Whether the Packaging and Packing Service Provider is 
an Affiliated Party and, as Such, Whether the Department Should 
Adjust the Price of the Services Provided by a Affiliated Party.
    Comment 8: Whether Certain Raw Material Inputs Should be 
Adjusted in Accordance with the Department's Major Input Rule.
    Comment 9: Whether the Department Should Allow Delsa's Claimed 
Startup Adjustment.
    Comment 10: Whether the Department Should Adjust Delsa's 
Financial Expense Ratio for Foreign Exchange Gains and Losses.
    Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Make Certain 
Adjustments to Delsa's General and Administrative Expense Ratio.

[FR Doc. E5-2236 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P