[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33063-33082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-2885]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-122-838]


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Partial Rescission: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From 
Canada

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 2005.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Certain Softwood 
Lumber Products from Canada for the period May 1, 2003, to April 30, 
2004 (the POR). We preliminarily determine that sales of subject 
merchandise made by Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. (Abitibi), Buchanan 
Lumber Sales Inc. (Buchanan), Canfor Corporation (Canfor), Tembec Inc. 
(Tembec), Tolko Industries Ltd. (Tolko), Weldwood of Canada Limited 
(Weldwood), West Fraser Mills Ltd. (West Fraser), and Weyerhaeuser 
Company (Weyerhaeuser), have been made below normal value. In addition, 
based on the preliminary results for these respondents selected for 
individual review, we have preliminarily determined a weighted-average 
margin for those companies that requested, but were not selected for, 
individual review. If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries based on the 
difference between the export price and constructed export price, and 
the normal value. Furthermore, requests for review of the antidumping 
order for the following thirteen companies were withdrawn: Age Cedar 
Products, Anderson Wholesale, Inc., Bay Forest Products Ltd., Coast 
Forest & Lumber Assoc., Coast Lumber, Inc., Duluth Timber Company, Les 
Produits Forestiers Latierre, North Pacific, Usine Sartigan Inc., 
Council of Forest Industries, Specialites G.D.S. Inc., BC Veneer 
Products Ltd., and Edge Grain Forest Products. Because the withdrawal 
requests were timely and there were no other requests for review of the 
companies, we are rescinding the review for these companies. See 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(i). Interested parties are invited to comment on these 
preliminary results and partial rescission.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel O'Brien or Constance Handley, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1376 or (202) 482-0631, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 3, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity to 
request an administrative review of this order. See Notice of 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 69 FR 
24117, (May 3, 2004). On May 28, 2004, in accordance

[[Page 33064]]

with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) and 19 CFR 
351.213(b), the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports (the Coalition), a 
domestic interested party in this case, requested a review of 
producers/exporters of certain softwood lumber products. Also, between 
May 3, and June 2, 2004, Canadian producers requested a review on their 
own behalf or had a review of their company requested by a U.S. 
importer.
    On June 30, 2004, the Department published a notice of initiation 
of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
softwood lumber products from Canada, covering the POR. See Notice of 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 69 FR 39409 (June 30, 
2004).1\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This notice was further amended. See Notice of Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Request for Revocation in Part, 69 FR 45010 (July 28, 2004); see 
also Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 69 FR 
52857 (August 30, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department received requests for review from more than 400 
companies. Accordingly, in July 2004, in advance of issuing antidumping 
questionnaires, the Department issued to all companies pursuing an 
administrative review, a letter requesting total quantity and value of 
subject merchandise exported to the United States during the POR. 
Companies were required to submit their responses to the Department by 
July 22, 2004. In addition, we received comments from interested 
parties on the respondent selection process, which included proposed 
methodologies.
    Upon consideration of the information received with respect to 
respondent selection, on August 23, 2004, the Department selected as 
mandatory respondents the eight largest exporters/producers of subject 
merchandise during the POR: Abitibi, Buchanan, Canfor, Tembec, Tolko, 
Weldwood, West Fraser, and Weyerhaeuser. See Memorandum from James 
Kemp, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Jeffrey May, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary, regarding Selection of Respondents (August 23, 
2004) (Selection of Respondents Memorandum). See also Selection of 
Respondents section below.
    On August 24, 2004, the Department issued sections A, B, C, D, and 
E of the antidumping duty questionnaire to the selected respondents. 
The respondents submitted their initial responses to the antidumping 
questionnaire from September through December of 2004. After analyzing 
these responses, we issued supplemental questionnaires to the 
respondents to clarify or correct the initial questionnaire responses. 
We received timely responses to these questionnaires.

Partial Rescission

    On July 22, 2004, Specialites G.D.S. Inc. withdrew its request for 
administrative review and on September 9, 2004, BC Veneer Products 
Ltd., and Edge Grain Forest Products withdrew their requests for 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order. On July 7, 2004, 
the Coalition, with respect to Age Cedar Products, Anderson Wholesale, 
Inc., Bay Forest Products Ltd., Coast Forest & Lumber Assoc., Coast 
Lumber, Inc., Duluth Timber Company, Les Produits Forestiers Latierre, 
North Pacific, Usine Sartigan Inc., and Council of Forest Industries, 
also withdrew its request for administrative reviews of the antidumping 
duty order. Because the requests were timely filed, i.e., within 90 
days of publication of the Initiation Notice, and because there were no 
other requests for review of the above-mentioned companies, we are 
rescinding the review with respect these companies in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). The Coalition also withdrew its request with 
regard to Buchanan Distribution Inc., Les Produits Forestiers Temrex, 
and Usine St. Alphonse, Inc. Les Produits Forestiers Temrex Usine St. 
Alphonse, Inc. is, in fact, a single entity, although it appeared as 
two entities in the June 30, 2004, initiation notice pursuant to the 
Coalition's request. Buchanan Distribution Inc. and Les Produits 
Forestiers Temrex Usine St. Alphonse, Inc. are, respectively, 
affiliated and collapsed with Buchanan and Tembec, and, therefore they 
continue to be covered by the review.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are softwood lumber, flooring 
and siding (softwood lumber products). Softwood lumber products include 
all products classified under headings 4407.1000, 4409.1010, 4409.1090, 
and 4409.1020, respectively, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS), and any softwood lumber, flooring and siding 
described below. These softwood lumber products include:
    (1) coniferous wood, sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, 
whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed, of a thickness 
exceeding six millimeters;
    (2) coniferous wood siding (including strips and friezes for 
parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, 
rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) 
along any of its edges or faces, whether or not planed, sanded or 
finger-jointed;-2
    (3) other coniferous wood (including strips and friezes for parquet 
flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, 
rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) 
along any of its edges or faces (other than wood moldings and wood 
dowel rods) whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed; and (4) 
coniferous wood flooring (including strips and friezes for parquet 
flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, 
rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) 
along any of its edges or faces, whether or not planed, sanded or 
finger-jointed.
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under 
review is dispositive.
    Softwood lumber products excluded from the scope:
     trusses and truss kits, properly classified under HTSUS 
4418.90
     I-joist beams
     assembled box spring frames
     pallets and pallet kits, properly classified under HTSUS 
4415.20
     edge-glued wood, properly classified under HTSUS 
4421.90.97.40 (formerly HTSUS 4421.90.98.40).
     properly classified complete door frames.
     properly classified complete window frames
     properly classified furniture
Softwood lumber products excluded from the scope only if they meet 
certain requirements:
     Stringers (pallet components used for runners): if they 
have at least two notches on the side, positioned at equal distance 
from the center, to properly accommodate forklift blades, properly 
classified under HTSUS 4421.90.97.40 (formerly HTSUS 4421.90.98.40).
     Box-spring frame kits: if they contain the following 
wooden pieces--two side rails, two end (or top) rails and varying 
numbers of slats. The side rails and the end rails should be radius-cut 
at both ends. The kits should be individually packaged, they should 
contain the exact number of wooden components needed to

[[Page 33065]]

make a particular box-spring frame, with no further processing 
required. None of the components exceeds 1'' in actual thickness or 
83'' in length.
     Radius-cut box-spring-frame components, not exceeding 1'' 
in actual thickness or 83'' in length, ready for assembly without 
further processing. The radius cuts must be present on both ends of the 
boards and must be substantial cuts so as to completely round one 
corner.
     Fence pickets requiring no further processing and properly 
classified under HTSUS 4421.90.70, 1'' or less in actual thickness, up 
to 8'' wide, 6' or less in length, and have finials or decorative 
cuttings that clearly identify them as fence pickets. In the case of 
dog-eared fence pickets, the corners of the boards should be cut off so 
as to remove pieces of wood in the shape of isosceles right angle 
triangles with sides measuring 3/4 inch or more.
 U.S. origin lumber shipped to Canada for minor processing and 
imported into the United States, is excluded from the scope of this 
order if the following conditions are met: 1) the processing occurring 
in Canada is limited to kiln-drying, planing to create smooth-to-size 
board, and sanding; and 2) if the importer establishes to CBP's 
satisfaction that the lumber is of U.S. origin.
     Softwood lumber products contained in single family home 
packages or kits,\2\ regardless of tariff classification, are excluded 
from the scope of the orders if the following criteria are met:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ To ensure administrability, we clarified the language of 
this exclusion to require an importer certification and to permit 
single or multiple entries on multiple days. We also instructed 
importers to retain and make available for inspection specific 
documentation in support of each entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The imported home package or kit constitutes a full package of 
the number of wooden pieces specified in the plan, design or blueprint 
necessary to produce a home of at least 700 square feet produced to a 
specified plan, design or blueprint;
    (B) The package or kit must contain all necessary internal and 
external doors and windows, nails, screws, glue, subfloor, sheathing, 
beams, posts, connectors and if included in purchase contract decking, 
trim, drywall and roof shingles specified in the plan, design or 
blueprint;
    (C) Prior to importation, the package or kit must be sold to a 
retailer of complete home packages or kits pursuant to a valid purchase 
contract referencing the particular home design plan or blueprint, and 
signed by a customer not affiliated with the importer;
    (D) The whole package must be imported under a single consolidated 
entry when permitted by CBP, whether or not on a single or multiple 
trucks, rail cars or other vehicles, which shall be on the same day 
except when the home is over 2,000 square feet;
    (E) The following documentation must be included with the entry 
documents:
     a copy of the appropriate home design, plan, or blueprint 
matching the entry;
     a purchase contract from a retailer of home kits or 
packages signed by a customer not affiliated with the importer;
     a listing of inventory of all parts of the package or kit 
being entered that conforms to the home design package being entered;
     in the case of multiple shipments on the same contract, 
all items listed immediately above which are included in the present 
shipment shall be identified as well.
    We have determined that the excluded products listed above are 
outside the scope of this order provided the specified conditions are 
met. Lumber products that CBP may classify as stringers, radius cut 
box-spring-frame components, and fence pickets, not conforming to the 
above requirements, as well as truss components, pallet components, and 
door and window frame parts, are covered under the scope of this order 
and may be classified under HTSUS subheadings 4418.90.40.90, 
4421.90.70.40, and 4421.90.98.40. Due to changes in the 2002 HTSUS 
whereby subheading 4418.90.40.90 and 4421.90.98.40 were changed to 
4418.90.45.90 and 4421.90.97.40, respectively, we are adding these 
subheadings as well.
    In addition, this scope language has been further clarified to now 
specify that all softwood lumber products entered from Canada claiming 
non-subject status based on U.S. country of origin will be treated as 
non-subject U.S.-origin merchandise under the countervailing duty 
order, provided that these softwood lumber products meet the following 
condition: upon entry, the importer, exporter, Canadian processor and/
or original U.S. producer establish to CBP's satisfaction that the 
softwood lumber entered and documented as U.S.-origin softwood lumber 
was first produced in the United States as a lumber product satisfying 
the physical parameters of the softwood lumber scope.\3\ The 
presumption of non-subject status can, however, be rebutted by evidence 
demonstrating that the merchandise was substantially transformed in 
Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See the scope clarification message (3034202), dated 
February 3, 2003, to CBP, regarding treatment of U.S.-origin lumber 
on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Commerce 
Building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selection of Respondents

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the 
subject merchandise. However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the 
Department the discretion, when faced with a large number of exporters/
producers, to limit its examination to a reasonable number of such 
companies if it is not practicable to examine all companies. Where it 
is not practicable to examine all known exporters/producers of subject 
merchandise, this provision permits the Department to review either: 
(1) a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is 
statistically valid based on the information available at the time of 
selection, or (2) exporters and producers accounting for the largest 
volume of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined.
    Responses to the Department's information request were received 
July 13 through July 27, 2004. After consideration of the data 
submitted, and the complexities unique to this proceeding, as well as 
the resources available to the Department, we determined that it was 
not practicable in this review to examine all known exporters/producers 
of subject merchandise. We found that given our resources, we would be 
able to review the eight exporters/producers with the greatest export 
volume, as identified above. For a more detailed discussion of 
respondent selection in this review, See Selection of Respondents 
Memorandum. We received a written request from one company\4\ to be 
included as a voluntary respondent in this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In this proceeding, we received a written request from 
Riverside Forest Products (June 24, 2004) to be a voluntary 
respondent. As all the mandatory respondents participated, we were 
unable to accommodate this request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Collapsing Determinations

    The Department's regulations provide for the treatment of 
affiliated producers as a single entity where: (1) those producers have 
production facilities for similar or identical products that would not 
require substantial retooling of either facility in order to 
restructure manufacturing priorities; and (2) the

[[Page 33066]]

Department concludes that there is a significant potential for the 
manipulation of price or production.\5\ In identifying a significant 
potential for the manipulation of price or production, the Department 
may consider such factors as: (i) the level of common ownership; (ii) 
the extent to which managerial employees or board members of one firm 
sit on the board of directors of an affiliated firm; and (iii) whether 
operations are intertwined, such as through the sharing of sales 
information, involvement in production and pricing decisions, the 
sharing of facilities or employees, or significant transactions between 
the affiliated producers.\6\ These factors are illustrative, and not 
exhaustive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1).
    \6\ See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Canfor and Slocan merged operations on April 1, 2004. On December 
20, 2004, the Department determined that the post-merger Canfor is the 
successor-in-interest to both the pre-merger Canfor and Slocan. See 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances 
Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, 67 FR 75921 
(December 20, 2004). For the purposes of these preliminary results, we 
have calculated three separate margins: one each for Canfor and Slocan 
individually for the eleven months of the POR prior to April 1, 2004, 
and a third margin for the post-merger Canfor for April 2004. The 
resulting cash deposit rate is a weighted average of the three 
calculated margins. In addition, Canfor purchased Daaquam Lumber Inc. 
(Daaquam) on May 27, 2003. Daaquam functions as an independent 
subsidiary within Canfor Corporation. Canfor reported all sales of 
lumber produced by the former Daaquam facilities during the POR. For 
purposes of this review, we considered only those sales made after the 
date of purchase. Finally, Canfor reported the sales of its affiliates 
Lakeland Mills Ltd. and The Pas Lumber Company Ltd.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Canfor continues to be collapsed with its affiliate Skeena 
Cellulose. However, Canfor was excused from reporting sales of its 
affiliates because of their low volume. We note that in the last 
review Canfor was collapsed with its affiliates Howe Sound Pulp and 
Paper Limited Partnership (Howe Sound). In the current review, 
Canfor reported that Howe Sound had sold all of its lumber-producing 
equipment. Therefore, we have removed Howe Sound from the Canfor 
Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, respondents reported, in their questionnaire 
responses, the sales of certain affiliated companies. Abitibi reported 
the sales of subject merchandise produced by its affiliates Produits 
Forestiers Petit Paris, Inc., Produits Forestiers La Tuque, Inc., and 
Societe en Commandite Scierie Opticiwan. Buchanan reported the sales of 
its affiliates Atikokan Forest Products Ltd., Long Lake Forest Products 
Inc., Nakina Forest Products Limited, Buchanan Distribution Inc., 
Buchanan Forest Products Ltd., Great West Timber Ltd., Dubreuil Forest 
Products Ltd., Northern Sawmills Inc., and McKenzie Forest Products 
Inc. Buchanan was excused from reporting the sales of the subject 
merchandise produced by its affiliate, Solid Wood Products Inc. Tembec 
reported the sales of Les Industries Davidson, Inc.\8\ as well as 
Tembec affiliates Marks Lumber Ltd., Temrex Limited Partnership, and 
791615 Ontario Limited (Excel Forest Products). Tolko was excused from 
reporting the sales of Gilbert Smith Forest Products, Ltd., although 
(Gilbert Smith) continues to be collapsed with Tolko.\9\ Weldwood 
reported the sales of its affiliated reseller Weldwood Sales 
Incorporated (WSI) in its questionnaire response. In addition, Weldwood 
reported sales from joint venture mills that it operates. These 
operations are Babine Forest Products Company, Decker Lake Forest 
Products Limited, and Houston Forest Products Company. Weldwood also 
reported sales of subject merchandise from Sunpine Forest Products 
Limited, a subsidiary of Sunpine Incorporated, which is a subsidiary of 
Weldwood. West Fraser reported the sales of its affiliates West Fraser 
Forest Products Inc. (WFFP) and Seehta Forest Products Ltd. 
Weyerhaeuser reported the sales of its affiliate Weyerhaeuser 
Saskatchewan Ltd. Upon review of the questionnaire responses, we 
determined that the affiliates discussed above were properly collapsed 
with the respective respondent companies for the purposes of this 
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Tembec purchased the shares of Davidson on November 5, 2001, 
and as of December 27, 2003, Davidson became a division of Tembec. 
The Davidson Division's financial results have been fully 
consolidated in Tembec's financial statements for the entirety of 
the POR. Therefore, we are no longer listing Davidson separately as 
part of the Tembec Group.
    \9\ We note that in the first administrative review, Tolko's 
affiliate Compwood Products Ltd. (Compwood) was listed as part of 
the Tolko Group. Tolko has not been collapsed with Compwood, a 
laminated beam producer. Rather Tolko has reported sales to Compwood 
as sales to an affiliated party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department excused individual respondents from reporting the 
sales of specific merchandise or sales by certain affiliates during 
this review. These specific reporting exemptions were granted to the 
companies because the sales were determined to be a relatively small 
percentage of total U.S. sales, burdensome to the company to report and 
for the Department to review, and would not materially affect the 
results of this review.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Memorandum from James Kemp, David Neubacher, and 
Ashleigh Batton to Susan Kuhbach, regarding Individual Reporting 
Exemption Requests of Certain Respondent Companies (October 7, 
2004); see also Memorandum from James Kemp, David Neubacher, and 
Ashleigh Batton to Susan Kuhbach, regarding Individual Reporting 
Exemption Requests of Buchanan Lumber Sales Ltd., West Fraser Mills 
Ltd., and Weyerhaeuser Company (October 19, 2004); see also 
Memorandum from Ashleigh Batton and Shane Subler to Susan Kuhbach 
regarding Buchanan Lumber Sales Ltd. and Weldwood of Canada Limited 
Individual Reporting Exemption Requests (November 1, 2004); see also 
Memorandum from Ashleigh Batton to Susan Kuhbach regarding 
Individual Reporting Exemption Request for Buchanan Lumber Sales 
Ltd. (December 13, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treatment of Sales Made on a Random-Lengths Basis

    All of the respondents made a portion of their sales during the POR 
on a random-length\11\ (also referred to as a mixed-tally) basis. 
Information on the record indicates that the respondents negotiate a 
single per-unit price for the whole tally with the customer, but that 
they take the composition of lengths in the tally into account when 
quoting this price. The price on the invoice is the blended (i.e., 
average) price for the tally. Therefore, the line-item price on the 
invoice to the customer does not reflect the value of the particular 
product, but rather the average value of the combination of products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For the purposes of this review, we are defining a random-
length sale as any sale which contains multiple lengths, for which a 
blended (i.e., average) price has been reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections 772(a) and (b) and 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act direct the 
Department to use the price at which the product was sold in 
determining export price (EP), constructed export price (CEP), and 
normal value (NV). In this case, the price at which the products were 
sold is the total amount on the invoice. The respondents' choice to 
divide that price evenly over all products on the invoice represents an 
arbitrary allocation which is not reflective of the underlying value of 
the individual products within the tally. However, with the exception 
of Weldwood and West Fraser, the respondents do not keep track of any 
underlying single-length prices in such a way that they can 
``deconstruct'' or reallocate the prices on the invoice to more 
properly reflect the relative differences in the market value of each 
unique product that were taken into account in determining the total 
invoice price.

[[Page 33067]]

    For all companies except Weldwood and West Fraser, for purposes of 
these preliminary results, we reallocated the total invoice price of 
sales made on a random-lengths basis, where possible, using the average 
relative values of company-specific, market-specific single-length 
sales made within a two-week period (i.e., one week on either side) of 
the tally whose price is being reallocated. If no such sales were 
found, we looked in a four-week period (i.e., two weeks on either side 
of the sale). We note that a single-length-sale match must be available 
for each line item in the tally in order to perform a reallocation 
based on relative price. If there were not single-length sales for all 
items in the tally within a four-week period, we continued to use the 
reported price as neutral facts available, pursuant to section 
776(a)(1) of the Act. For Weldwood and West Fraser, we used the 
reported length-specific prices. This methodology was fully described 
in detail during the last administrative review. See Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain 
Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, 69 FR 75921 (December 20, 2004) 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at comment 5.

Fair Value Comparisons

    We compared the EP or the CEP, as applicable, to the NV, as 
described in the Export Price and Constructed Export Price and Normal 
Value sections of this notice. We first attempted to compare 
contemporaneous sales in the U.S. and comparison markets of products 
that were identical with respect to the following characteristics: 
product type, species, grade group, grade, dryness, thickness, width, 
length, surface, trim and processing type. Where we were unable to 
compare sales of identical merchandise, we compared products sold in 
the United States with the most similar merchandise sold in the 
comparison markets based on the characteristics of grade, dryness, 
thickness, width, length, surface, trim and processing type,\12\ in 
this order of priority. Consistent with prior segments of this 
proceeding, we did not match across product type, species or grade 
group. Where there were no appropriate comparison-market sales of 
comparable merchandise, we compared the merchandise sold in the United 
States to constructed value (CV), in accordance with section 773(a)(4) 
of the Act. We generally relied on the date of invoice as the date of 
sale. Consistent with the Department's practice, where the invoice was 
issued after the date of shipment, we relied on the date of shipment as 
the date of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ We note that Tembec requested that the Department revise 
the model match criteria to include a new length category for nine-
foot lumber. While Tembec submitted some information on stud prices, 
it did not address all categories of nine-foot lumber for which it 
was requesting a change. Further, none of the other interested 
parties requested that nine-foot lumber be treated differently than 
that size of lumber had been treated in the investigation or first 
review, nor did they break out sales of nine-foot lumber. While 
Tembec argued that its sales of nine-foot lumber were unique and 
deserved distinctive treatment, we note that published prices also 
exist for seven-foot six-inch studs, which continue to be grouped 
with other studs of similar length. Therefore, for purposes of the 
current review we have continued to use the length categories 
established in the underlying investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772 of the Act, we calculated either an 
EP or a CEP, depending on the nature of each sale. Section 772(a) of 
the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is 
first sold before the date of importation by the exporter or producer 
outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United 
States.
    Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the 
subject merchandise is first sold in the United States before or after 
the date of importation, by or for the account of the producer or 
exporter of the merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the 
producer or exporter, to an unaffiliated purchaser, as adjusted under 
sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act.
    For all respondents, we calculated EP and CEP, as appropriate, 
based on prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the 
United States. We found that all of the respondents made a number of EP 
sales during the POR. These sales are properly classified as EP sales 
because they were made outside the United States by the exporter or 
producer to unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to the 
date of importation.
    We also found that each respondent made CEP sales during the POR. 
Some of these sales involved softwood lumber sold from U.S. reload or 
through vendor-managed inventory (VMI) locations. Because such sales 
were made by the respondent after the date of importation, the sales 
are properly classified as CEP sales. In addition, Weldwood, West 
Fraser, and Weyerhaeuser made sales to the United States through U.S. 
affiliates.
    We made company-specific adjustments as follows:
     (A) Abitibi
    Abitibi made both EP and CEP transactions. We calculated an EP for 
sales where the merchandise was sold directly by Abitibi to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and 
CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of the record. We 
calculated a CEP for sales made by Abitibi to the U.S. customer through 
VMI or reload centers after importation into the United States. EP and 
CEP were based on the packed, delivered, ex-mill, and free-on-board 
(FOB) reload center prices, as applicable.
    We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include freight 
incurred in transporting merchandise to reload and VMI centers, as well 
as freight to the U.S. customer, warehousing, brokerage and handling, 
and inland insurance. We also deducted any billing adjustments, 
discounts, and rebates.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales, we 
deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were 
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, 
including direct selling expenses (e.g., credit expenses) and imputed 
inventory carrying costs. Abitibi did not report any other indirect 
selling expenses incurred in the United States. In accordance with 
section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we deducted an amount of profit allocated 
to the expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and (2) of the Act. 
See Memorandum from Saliha Loucif to the File, regarding Abitibi's 
Analysis for the Preliminary Results (May 31, 2005) (Abitibi's 
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum).
    (B) Buchanan
    Buchanan made both EP and CEP transactions during the POR. We 
calculated an EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by 
Buchanan to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior 
to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts 
on the record. We calculated a CEP for sales made by Buchanan to the 
U.S. customer through reload centers after importation into the United 
States. EP and CEP were based on the packed, delivered, ex-mill, FOB 
mill, and FOB reload center prices, as applicable.
    We made deductions from starting prices for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include freight 
incurred in transporting merchandise to reload centers, freight to the 
U.S. customer,

[[Page 33068]]

warehousing, brokerage, and a movement variance. We also deducted any 
discounts from the starting price, and added any billing adjustments 
and other miscellaneous charges/credits.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales, we 
deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were 
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, 
including direct selling expenses, (e.g., credit expenses) and imputed 
inventory carrying costs. In accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the 
Act, we deducted an amount of profit allocated to the expenses deducted 
under sections 772(d)(1) and (2) of the Act. See Memorandum from 
Ashleigh Batton to the File, regarding Buchanan's Analysis for the 
Preliminary Results (May 31, 2005) (Buchanan's Preliminary Calculation 
Memorandum).
    (C) Canfor
    Canfor made both EP and CEP transactions. We calculated an EP for 
sales where the merchandise was sold directly by Canfor to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and 
CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of the record. We 
calculated a CEP for sales made by Canfor to the U.S. customer through 
VMI or reload centers after importation into the United States. EP and 
CEP were based on the packed, delivered, ex-mill, FOB mill, and FOB 
reload center prices, as applicable.
    From its sales locations in the United States and Canada, Canfor 
made sales of Canfor-produced merchandise that had been commingled with 
lumber from other producers. Canfor provided a weighting factor to 
determine the quantity of Canfor-produced Canadian merchandise for all 
sales. We are using the weighting factors to estimate the volume of 
Canfor-produced merchandise included in each sale.
    In some cases, the other producers knew or had reason to know that 
the merchandise purchased by Canfor was destined for the United States. 
For example, Canfor occasionally purchased merchandise from another 
producer and had the producer arrange freight from the producer's mill 
in Canada to the customer in the United States. We did not include such 
sales in our margin calculations. In other situations, Canfor purchased 
merchandise and the producer shipped it to U.S. reload centers, VMI 
locations, or to Canfor USA where it was commingled with lumber 
produced by Canfor. While the producer had knowledge that these sales 
were destined for the United States, Canfor was unable to link the 
purchases of lumber with a specific sale to the unaffiliated customer. 
Therefore, Canfor developed the weighting factor to determine, based on 
inventory location and control-number and the percentage of lumber at 
the specific inventory location and control-number, the percentage of 
lumber at the inventory location that was produced by Canfor. We are 
multiplying the weighting factor by the quantity of lumber in each sale 
to estimate the volume of Canfor-produced merchandise in each sale in 
the United States and home market, and to eliminate the estimated non-
Canfor produced merchandise.
    We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include freight 
incurred in transporting merchandise to reload centers or VMI 
locations, as well as freight to the U.S. customer, warehousing, 
brokerage and handling, and miscellaneous movement charges. We also 
deducted any discounts and rebates from the starting price.
    In addition to these adjustments, for CEP sales, in accordance with 
section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we adjusted the starting price by the 
amount of direct selling expenses and revenues (e.g., credit expenses 
and interest revenue). We further reduced the starting price by the 
amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States. 
Additionally, in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we 
deducted an amount of profit allocated to the expenses deducted under 
sections 772(d)(1) and (2) of the Act. Canfor reported a limited number 
of sales of purchased lumber for which the producer did not have 
knowledge that the lumber was destined for the United States. Because 
the lumber was very small in quantity and separately identifiable, we 
removed it from our calculation. Finally, we made additional 
corrections to the U.S. sales data based upon our findings at 
verification. See Memorandum from Daniel O'Brien and David Neubacher to 
the File, regarding Canfor's Analysis for the Preliminary Results (May 
31, 2005) (Canfor's Preliminary Calculation Memorandum).
    (D) Tembec
    Tembec made both EP and CEP transactions during the POR. We 
calculated an EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by 
Tembec to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior 
to importation. We calculated a CEP for sales made by Tembec to the 
U.S. customer through U.S. reload facilities or through VMI facilities. 
EP and CEP were based on the packed, delivered, FOB mill, FOB reload/
VMI center and FOB destination prices, as applicable.
    We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include freight 
incurred in transporting merchandise to Canadian reload centers and 
Canadian warehousing expenses, as well as freight to the U.S. customer 
or reload facility, U.S. warehousing expenses, and U.S. brokerage. We 
also deducted from the starting price any discounts and rebates.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales, we 
deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were 
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, 
including direct selling expenses (e.g., credit expenses) and indirect 
selling expenses. Finally, in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the 
Act, we deducted an amount of profit allocated to the expenses deducted 
under sections 772(d)(1) and (2) of the Act. See Memorandum from Saliha 
Loucif to the File, regarding Tembec's Analysis for the Preliminary 
Results (May 31, 2005) (Tembec's Preliminary Calculation Memorandum).
    (E) Tolko
    Tolko made both EP and CEP transactions. We calculated EP for sales 
where the merchandise was sold directly by Tolko to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and 
CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of the record. We 
calculated CEP for sales made by Tolko to the U.S. customer through VMI 
or reload centers after importation into the United States. EP and CEP 
were based on the packed, delivered, ex-mill, FOB mill, and FOB reload 
center prices, as applicable.
    We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include freight 
incurred in transporting merchandise to reload centers or VMI 
locations, as well as freight to the U.S. customer, warehousing, 
brokerage and handling, and miscellaneous movement charges. We also 
deducted any discounts and rebates from the starting price.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales, we 
deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were 
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, 
including direct selling expenses (e.g., credit expenses, warranty 
expenses) and imputed inventory carrying costs. Finally, in accordance 
with section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we deducted an amount for profit 
allocated to the expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and (2) of 
the Act. See Memorandum from Daniel Alexy to the File, regarding 
Tolko's Analysis for the

[[Page 33069]]

Preliminary Results (May 31, 2005) (Tolko's Preliminary Calculation 
Memorandum).
    (D) Weldwood
    Weldwood made both EP and CEP transactions. We calculated an EP for 
sales in which the merchandise was sold directly by Weldwood to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, 
and in which CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of the 
record. We calculated a CEP for sales made by WSI to the U.S. customer 
through reload centers after importation into the United States. EP and 
CEP were based on the ex-mill, carriage paid to reload (CPT reload), 
and delivered prices, as applicable.
    In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we reduced the 
starting price to account for movement expenses. These included the net 
freight expenses incurred in transporting merchandise to reload 
centers, net freight to the U.S. customer, and U.S. brokerage. We also 
deducted early payment discounts, credit or debit adjustments, and 
other relevant price adjustments from the starting price.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales, we 
deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were 
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, 
including direct selling expenses (e.g., credit expenses) and imputed 
inventory carrying costs. In accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the 
Act, we deducted an amount of profit allocated to the expenses deducted 
under sections 772(d)(1) and (2) of the Act. Finally, we made 
additional corrections to the U.S. sales data based upon our findings 
at verification. See Memorandum from Shane Subler to the File, 
regarding Weldwood's Analysis for the Preliminary Results (May 31, 
2005) (Weldwood's Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum).
    (E) West Fraser
    West Fraser made both EP and CEP transactions. We calculated an EP 
for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by West Fraser to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, 
and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of the record. 
We calculated a CEP for sales made by WFFP to the U.S. customer through 
VMI or reload centers after importation into the United States. EP and 
CEP were based on the packed, delivered, ex-mill, and FOB reload center 
prices, as applicable.
    We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include freight 
incurred in transporting merchandise to reload centers and to VMI 
customers, freight to the U.S. customer, warehousing, and U.S. and 
Canadian brokerage. We also deducted any discounts and rebates from the 
starting price.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales, we 
deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were 
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, 
including direct selling expenses, (e.g., credit expenses) and imputed 
inventory carrying costs. Finally, in accordance with section 772(d)(3) 
of the Act, we deducted an amount of profit allocated to the expenses 
deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and (2) of the Act. See Memorandum 
from David Neubacher to the File, regarding West Fraser's Analysis for 
the Preliminary Results (May 31, 2005) (West Fraser's Preliminary 
Calculation Memorandum).
    (F) Weyerhaeuser
    Weyerhaeuser made both EP and CEP transactions. We calculated an EP 
for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by Weyerhaeuser to 
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to 
importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of 
the record. We calculated a CEP for sales made by Weyerhaeuser to the 
U.S. customer through reload centers, VMIs, and Weyerhaeuser's 
affiliated reseller Weyerhaeuser Building Materials (WBM) after 
importation into the United States. EP and CEP were based on the 
packed, delivered, or FOB prices.
    From its sales locations in the United States and Canada, 
Weyerhaeuser made sales of merchandise which had been commingled with 
that of other producers. Weyerhaeuser provided a weighting factor to 
determine the quantity of Weyerhaeuser-produced Canadian merchandise 
for these sales. We are multiplying the weighting factor by the 
quantity of lumber in each U.S. and home market sale to estimate the 
volume of Weyerhaeuser-produced merchandise in each transaction and to 
eliminate the estimated non-Weyerhaeuser-produced merchandise from our 
margin calculation.
    In some cases, the other producers knew or had reason to know that 
the merchandise purchased by Weyerhaeuser was destined for the United 
States. For example, Weyerhaeuser routinely purchased merchandise and 
arranged freight from the producer's mill in Canada to the customer in 
the United States. We did not include such sales in our margin 
calculations. In other situations, Weyerhaeuser purchased merchandise 
and shipped it to U.S. warehouses where it was commingled with lumber 
produced by Weyerhaeuser. While the producer had knowledge that these 
sales were destined for the United States, Weyerhaeuser was unable to 
link the purchases with the specific sale to the unaffiliated customer. 
Therefore, Weyerhaeuser developed a second weighting factor to 
determine the quantity of the sale for which the third-party producer 
did not know, or have reason to know, that the merchandise was destined 
for the United States. We are multiplying the weighting factor by the 
quantity of lumber in each U.S. sale to estimate the volume of 
merchandise for which the producer did not have knowledge of 
destination in each transaction. We included this quantity in our 
margin calculation and excluded the estimated volume for which the 
producer did have knowledge of U.S. destination.
    We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include freight 
to U.S. and Canadian warehouses or reload centers, warehousing expense 
in Canada and the United States, brokerage and handling, and freight to 
the final customer. We also deducted from the starting price any 
discounts, billing adjustments, and rebates.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales, we 
deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were 
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, 
including indirect selling expenses and direct selling expenses (e.g., 
credit expenses). Additionally, in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of 
the Act, we deducted an amount for CEP profit. See Memorandum from 
Constance Handley to the File, regarding Weyerhaeuser's Analysis for 
the Preliminary Results (May 31, 2005) (Weyerhaeuser's Preliminary 
Calculation Memorandum).

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets
    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price 
at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided 
that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if 
quantity is inappropriate) and that there is no particular market 
situation that prevents a proper comparison with the EP or CEP. The Act 
contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be considered 
insufficient if they are less than five percent of the aggregate 
quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United 
States. We

[[Page 33070]]

found that all eight respondents had viable home markets for lumber.
    To derive NV, we made the adjustments detailed in the Calculation 
of Normal Value Based on Home-Market Prices and Calculation of Normal 
Value Based on Constructed Value, sections below.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
    Because the Department found in the most recently completed segment 
of the proceeding at the time the questionnaire was sent (i.e., the 
investigation), that five\13\ of the respondents made sales in the home 
market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise and 
excluded such sales from NV, the Department determined that there were 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that softwood lumber sales 
were made in Canada at prices below the cost of production (COP) in 
this administrative review for those five respondents. See section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. As a result, the Department initiated a 
COP inquiry for such respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Abitibi, Tembec, West Fraser, Weyerhaeuser, and Canfor. As 
discussed above, during the investigation, Canfor and Slocan merged 
as of April 1, 2004. Both companies had sales which were disregarded 
because they were below the cost of production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 21, 2004, the Coalition made an allegation of sales 
below the cost of production (COP) with respect to Weldwood. We found 
that the Coalition's allegation provided the Department with a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that sales in the home market 
have been made at prices below the COP by Weldwood. Accordingly, we 
initiated an investigation to determine whether Weldwood's home market 
sales of certain softwood lumber products were made at prices below the 
COP during the POR. See Memorandum from Shane Subler to Susan Kuhbach, 
regarding Allegation of Sales Below Cost of Production for Weldwood 
(January 26, 2005).
    Furthermore, during the first administrative review, we determined 
to disregard sales made by Buchanan and Tolko that were below the cost 
of production. In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, 
the Department initiated a COP inquiry to determine whether Buchanan 
and Tolko made home-market sales at prices below their respective COPs 
during this POR.
    1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and 
administrative (G&A) expenses, selling expenses, packing expenses and 
interest expenses.
    2. Cost Methodology
    In our section D questionnaire, we solicited information from the 
respondents that allows for a value-based cost allocation methodology 
for wood and sawmill costs (i.e., those costs presumed to be joint 
costs), including by-product revenue. We allowed for the value 
allocation to cover species, grade, and dimension (i.e., thickness, 
width and length). For production costs that are separately 
identifiable to specific products (e.g., drying or planing costs), we 
directed parties to allocate such costs only to the associated products 
using an appropriate allocation basis (e.g., MBF). In allocating wood 
and sawmill costs (including by-product revenue) based on value, costs 
associated with a particular group of co-products were to be allocated 
only to those products (i.e., wood costs of a particular species should 
only be allocated to that species).
    Further, we directed the parties to use weighted-average world-wide 
prices in deriving the net realizable values (NRV) used for the 
allocation. We used world-wide prices to ensure that all products 
common to the joint production process, not just those sold in a 
particular market, are allocated their fair share of the total joint 
costs. Finally, we directed the parties to perform the value allocation 
on the mill/facility level, using the company-wide weighted-average 
world-wide NRV for the specific products produced at the mill, along 
with the mill-specific production quantities.
    Consistent with our methodology in the first administrative review, 
we requested that the respondents break out the random-length sales 
separately from length-specific sales and to develop a two-tiered 
allocation method. First, we directed the respondents to perform the 
price-based cost allocation (including the random-length-tally sales) 
without regard to length. Second, we directed them to allocate the 
resulting product costs into length-specific costs. In performing the 
second step, we set out a hierarchy when looking for surrogate sales as 
allocation factors: 1) length-specific sales of the identical product; 
2) length-specific sales of products that are identical to the product 
except for width; and 3) length-specific sales of products identical to 
the product except for NLGA grade equivalent. For purposes of these 
preliminary results, we have used the programs and calculations 
provided by respondents except in the case of West Fraser and Weldwood. 
For West Fraser and Weldwood, this step was not necessary due to their 
ability to provide length-specific sales data. See Treatment of Sales 
Made on a Random-Lengths Basis section above. In addition, we excluded 
the price of purchased and resold lumber from our calculation of the 
respondent's per unit product costs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ W knowledge that the product was for export to the United 
States. e note that the vast majority of purchased lumber was 
excluded from our sales analyses as the producer had.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Individual Company Adjustments
    We relied on the COP data submitted by each respondent in its cost 
questionnaire response, except in specific instances where based on our 
review of the submissions and our verification findings, we believe 
that an adjustment is required, as discussed below.
    For the calculation of general and administrative (G&A) expenses 
for all companies, we did not include the legal fees which were paid 
directly by the company to its legal counsel and consultants associated 
with the AD and CVD proceedings. However, we included the fees paid to 
the provincial associations because none of the companies was able to 
substantiate that these payments were for legal representation 
associated with the AD and CVD proceedings.
    In accordance with section 773(f)(1) of the Act, for companies that 
had inter-divisional byproduct transactions where the transfer price 
was significantly higher than an arm's-length market price, we adjusted 
the transfer price to the market price. For companies that had 
byproduct transactions with affiliates where the transfer price was 
higher than the market price, we adjusted the transfer price to the 
market price in accordance with section 773(f)(2) of the Act.
     (A) Abitibi
    1) We adjusted Abitibi's byproduct offset for wood chip revenue in 
British Columbia to reflect the average market price it obtained from 
unaffiliated parties.
    2) We included in Abitibi's G&A expense rate calculation the 
goodwill impairment that was written of in its normal books and 
records. Additionally, we excluded the plant closure costs.
    3) Because Abitibi reported net financing income, we included zero 
financing costs.
    See Memorandum from Michael Harrison to Neal M. Halper regarding 
Abitibi's Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results (May 31, 2005).
    (B) Canfor

[[Page 33071]]

    1) We adjusted the Pas' byproduct offset for wood chip revenue in 
British Columbia to reflect the average market price it obtained from 
unaffiliated parties.
    2) We increased Canfor's reported cost of manufacturing (COM) to 
reflect arm's length prices of contract logging performed by affiliated 
parties in accordance with section 773(f)(2) of the Act.
    3) For the Lakeland entity, we reclassified the ``other income'' 
items from financial expenses to G&A expenses.
    4) For the Canfor entity, we excluded the gain on sales of land 
from the G&A expense rate calculation. We also included in G&A certain 
wood paneling division costs which related to the general operations of 
the company. In addition, we included costs associated with maintenance 
and downtime that had been excluded.
    5) For the Slocan entity, we identified a startup adjustment 
related to the Mackenzie Mill in the first administrative review. We 
included the adjustment in our cost calculations for this review.
    6) Because Canfor reported net financing income, we included zero 
financing costs.
    See Memorandum from Gina K. Lee to Neal M. Halper regarding 
Canfor's Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results (May 31, 2005).
     (C) Tembec
    1) We used Tembec's unconsolidated financial statements of the 
lumber-producing entities to calculate the G&A expense rate. We 
included the impairment of goodwill and write down of fixed assets in 
the G&A expenses.
    2) Because Tembec reported net financing income, we included zero 
financing costs.
    3) We adjusted Tembec's province specific byproduct offset for wood 
chip revenue to reflect the average market price it obtained from 
unaffiliated parties.
    4) We excluded Tembec's claimed byproduct offset for the whole log 
chip revenues because whole log chipping is not a byproduct of lumber 
production.
    5) We adjusted the reported variable wood costs to reflect the cost 
of external log sales.
    See Cost Memorandum from Sheikh Hannan to Neal Halper regarding 
Tembec's Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results (May 31, 2005).
    (D) Tolko
    1) We increased Tolko's reported wood costs to reflect arm's length 
prices of logs purchased from affiliated parties in accordance with 
section 773(f)(2) of the Act.
    2) We revised Tolko's financial expense calculation. Due to the 
claimed proprietary nature of the adjustment, we discuss this more 
fully in the calculation memo cited below.
    See Memorandum from Nancy M. Decker to Neal M. Halper regarding 
Tolko's Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results (May 31, 2005).
    (E) Weldwood
    1) We used Weldwood's submitted cost file that allocates the 
timberland units' log costs to the sawmills based on the average log 
cost from each timberland.
    2) We revised the planer cost of one mill to account for trim loss 
on rough lumber inter-company sales and to reclassify certain planer 
costs.
    3) We revised the variable drying cost of three mills to account 
for drying expenses related to inter-company sales of dried rough 
lumber.
    4) We revised the variable planing costs of two mills to include 
freight expenses incurred on inter-company sales.
    5) Weldwood allocated certain wood chip revenue to one location. We 
reallocated this revenue to the sawmills that produced the wood chips.
    See Memorandum from Mark Todd to Neal Halper regarding Weldwood's 
Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for 
the Preliminary Results (May 31, 2005).
     (G) West Fraser
    1) Because West Fraser reported net financing income, we included 
zero financing costs.
    2) We excluded the gain on the sale of a sawmill unit from the G&A 
expense rate calculation.
    See Memorandum from James Balog to Neal Halper regarding West 
Fraser's Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results (May 31, 2005).
     (H) Weyerhaeuser
    1) We revised the Weyerhaeuser's reported wood costs for the 
British Columbia Coastal timberland units to reflect a value-based cost 
allocation for logs transferred to the sawmills. We used the cost 
database which Weyerhaeuser provided at our request that reflects the 
alternative value-based log costing methodology.
    2) We adjusted Weyerhaeuser's byproduct offset for wood chip 
revenue in British Columbia to reflect the average market price it 
obtained from unaffiliated purchasers.
    3) We excluded from the G&A expense rate calculation the costs 
related to closure of the company's production facilities.
    4) We disallowed certain offsets to G&A expenses, the identity of 
which is proprietary. We discuss these items more fully in the 
calculation memo cited below.
    See Memorandum from Ernest Gziryan to Neal Halper regarding 
Weyerhaeuser's Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results (May 31, 2005).
    4. Test of Home-Market Sales Prices
    We compared the adjusted weighted-average COP for each respondent 
to its home-market sales of the foreign like product, as required under 
section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been 
made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time (i.e., a 
period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices 
were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time. On a model-specific basis, we compared the revised COP 
to the home-market prices, less any applicable movement charges, export 
taxes, discounts and rebates.
    5. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a 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 we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
substantial quantities. Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's 
sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the 
COP, we determined such sales to have been made in substantial 
quantities within an extended period of time in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. Because we compared prices to the POR average 
COP, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which 
would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales. For all respondents, we found that 
more than 20 percent of the home-market sales of certain softwood 
lumber products

[[Page 33072]]

within an extended period of time were made at prices less than the 
COP. Further, the prices did not provide for the recovery of costs 
within a reasonable period of time. We therefore disregarded the below-
cost sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining 
normal value, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For 
those U.S. sales of softwood lumber for which there were no useable 
home-market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared EPs or 
CEPs to the CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. See 
Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value section below.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home-Market Prices
    We determined price-based NVs for each company as follows. For all 
respondents, we made adjustments for differences in packing in 
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act, 
and we deducted movement expenses consistent with section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, 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) in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We also made 
adjustments, in accordance with section 351.410(e), for indirect 
selling expenses incurred on comparison-market or U.S. sales where 
commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other 
(the ``commission offset''). Specifically, where commissions were 
granted in the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we made a 
downward adjustment to NV for the lesser of (1) the amount of the 
commission paid in the U.S. market, or (2) the amount of indirect 
selling expenses incurred in the comparison market. If commissions were 
granted in the comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we made an 
upward adjustment to NV following the same methodology. Company-
specific adjustments are described below.
    (A) Abitibi
    We based home-market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in Canada. We adjusted the starting price for inland 
freight, warehousing expenses, insurance, discounts, rebates, and 
billing adjustments. For comparisons made to EP sales, we made COS 
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home-
market sales (e.g., credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses (e.g., credit expenses). For comparisons made to CEP sales, we 
deducted home-market direct selling expenses. See Abitibi's Preliminary 
Calculation Memorandum.
    (B) Buchanan
    We based home-market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in Canada. We adjusted the starting price by the amount of 
billing adjustments, early payment discounts, and movement expenses 
including inland freight, warehousing, miscellaneous movement charges, 
and a movement variance. For comparisons made to EP sales, we made COS 
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home-
market sales (e.g., credit expenses). For comparisons to CEP sales, we 
deducted home market selling expenses.
    (C) Canfor
    Canfor commingled self-produced with purchased lumber in home-
market sales in the same manner as it did in U.S. sales, as described 
in the previous section. We used Canfor's weighting factor to determine 
the percentage of lumber in the commingled sales that was supplied by 
other producers. We did not include these quantities when calculating 
the weight-averaged home-market prices for comparison to EP or CEP.
    We based home-market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in Canada. We adjusted the starting price by the amount of 
billing adjustments, early payment discounts, rebates, interest 
revenue, and movement expenses (including inland freight, warehousing, 
and miscellaneous movement charges). For comparisons made to EP sales, 
we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred 
for home-market sales (e.g., credit and warranty expenses) and adding 
U.S. direct selling expenses (e.g., credit, advertising, and warranty 
expenses). For comparisons made to CEP sales, we deducted home-market 
direct selling expenses and revenue. In addition, we made adjustments 
to the home-market prices based upon our findings at verification. See 
Canfor's Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.
    (D) Tembec
    We based home-market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in Canada. We adjusted the starting price for billing 
adjustments, early payment discounts, rebates, interest revenue, 
freight from the mill to the reload center or VMI, reload center 
expenses and freight to the final customer. For comparisons made to EP 
sales, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses for 
home-market sales (e.g., credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct 
selling expenses (e.g., credit expenses). For comparisons made to CEP 
sales, we deducted home-market direct selling expenses. See Tembec's 
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.
    (E) Tolko
    We based home-market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in Canada. We adjusted the starting price by the amount of 
billing adjustments, and movement expenses including inland freight, 
warehousing, and miscellaneous movement charges. For comparisons made 
to EP sales, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling 
expenses incurred for home-market sales (e.g., credit and warranty 
expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (e.g., credit and 
warranty expenses). For comparisons made to CEP sales, we deducted 
home-market direct selling expenses. See Tolko's Preliminary 
Calculation Memorandum.
    (F) Weldwood
    We based home-market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in Canada. We adjusted the starting price for credit and 
debit adjustments, early payment discounts, net inland freight to the 
reload, and net inland freight to customers. For comparisons made to EP 
sales, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for home-market sales and adding U.S. direct selling expenses 
(e.g., credit expenses). For comparisons made to CEP sales, we deducted 
home-market direct selling expenses. In addition, we made adjustments 
to the home-market prices based upon our findings at verification. See 
Weldwood's Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.
    (G) West Fraser
    We based home-market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in Canada. We adjusted the starting price for early payment 
discounts, inland freight to the warehouse, warehousing expenses, 
special charges, inland freight to customers, freight rebates, and fuel 
surcharges. For comparisons made to EP sales, we made COS adjustments 
by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home-market sales and 
adding U.S. direct selling expenses (e.g., credit expenses). For 
comparisons made to CEP sales, we deducted home-market direct selling 
expenses. See West Fraser's Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.
    (H) Weyerhaeuser
    Weyerhaeuser commingled self-produced with purchased lumber in 
home-market sales in the same manner as it did in U.S. sales, as 
described in the previous section. We used Weyerhaeuser's weighting 
factor to

[[Page 33073]]

determine the percentage of lumber in the commingled sales that was 
supplied by other producers. We did not include these quantities when 
calculating the weight-averaged home-market prices for comparison to EP 
or CEP.
    We based home-market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in Canada. We adjusted the starting price for discounts, 
rebates, billing adjustments, freight to the warehouse/reload center, 
warehousing expenses, freight to the final customer, and direct selling 
expenses including minor remanufacturing performed at Softwood Lumber 
Business (SWL) reloads and WBM locations. For comparisons made to EP 
sales, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for home-market sales (e.g., credit expenses) and adding U.S. 
direct selling expenses (e.g., credit expenses). For comparisons made 
to CEP sales, we deducted home-market direct selling expenses.
D. 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 softwood lumber products for which we could not 
determine the NV based on comparison-market sales, either because there 
were no useable sales of a comparable product or all sales of the 
comparable products failed the COP test, we based NV on the CV.
    Section 773(e) of the Act provides that the CV shall be based on 
the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported 
merchandise, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing 
costs. For each respondent, we calculated the cost of materials and 
fabrication based on the methodology described in the Cost of 
Production Analysis section, above. We based SG&A expenses and profit 
for each respondent on the actual amounts incurred and realized by the 
respondents in connection with the production and sale of the foreign 
like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the 
comparison market, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. 
We used U.S. packing costs as described in the Export Price section, 
above.
    We made adjustments to CV for differences in COS in accordance with 
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, 
we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred 
on home-market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, 
CV. For comparisons to CEP, we made COS adjustments by deducting from 
CV direct selling expenses incurred on home-market sales.
E. Level of Trade/CEP Offset
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV LOT 
is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when 
NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses 
and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-
price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP, it is 
the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or 
CEP, 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 comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 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 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).
    In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained 
information from each respondent about the marketing stages involved in 
the reported U.S. and comparison-market sales, including a description 
of the selling activities performed by the respondents for each channel 
of distribution. In identifying LOTs for EP and comparison-market 
sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in the starting 
price before any adjustments. For 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. We expect that, if 
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 this review, we determined the following, with respect to the 
LOT and CEP offset, for each respondent.
    (A) Abitibi
    Abitibi reported three channels of distribution. The first channel 
of distribution (channel 1) included direct sales from Canadian mills 
or reload centers to customers. The second channel of distribution 
(channel 2) consisted of direct sales from Canadian reload centers to 
customers. The third channel of distribution (channel 3) consisted of 
VMI/consignment sales made to large retailers, distributors, building 
materials manufacturers and other large lumber producers. We compared 
selling functions in each of these three channels of distribution and 
found that the sales process, freight services and inventory 
maintenance activities were similar. Accordingly, we preliminarily 
determine that home-market sales in these three channels of 
distribution constitute a single LOT.
    In the U.S. market, Abitibi had both EP and CEP sales. Abitibi 
reported EP sales to end-users and distributors through two channels of 
distribution for its direct sales from Canadian mills (channel 1) or 
from Canadian reload centers to customers (channel 2). Abitibi reported 
the same selling functions for these two channels of distribution. 
Therefore, we consider that channels of distribution for EP sales 
during the review constitute a single LOT. Moreover, we preliminary 
determine that this EP LOT is identical to the home-market LOT.
    With respect to CEP sales, Abitibi reported sales through two 
channels of distribution. The first (channel 3) included direct sales 
from U.S. reload centers to customers. The second (channel 4) consisted 
of VMI/consignment sales made to large retailers, distributors, 
building materials manufacturers and other large lumber producers. The 
selling functions related to freight arrangements and inventory 
maintenance for these two channels of distribution were not 
significantly different and, therefore, we preliminary determine there 
is only one CEP LOT.
    Abitibi's sales to end-users and distributors in the home-market 
and in the U.S. market do not involve significantly different selling 
functions. Abitibi's Canadian-based services for CEP sales were similar 
to the single home-market LOT with respect to sales process and 
warehouse/inventory maintenance. Because we are finding the LOT for CEP 
sales to be similar to the home-market LOT, we are making no LOT 
adjustment or CEP offset. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    (B) Buchanan

[[Page 33074]]

    Buchanan reported multiple channels of distribution in the home 
market, with six categories of unaffiliated customers. Buchanan made 
sales to customers in Canada via the affiliated sales agent, Buchanan 
Lumber Sales, Inc. (BLS), direct from the mill, through a reload yard, 
or it made use of resellers in certain instances. We compared selling 
functions in each of these channels of distribution and found that the 
sales process and freight services were similar. Accordingly, we 
preliminarily determine that home-market sales in these channels of 
distribution constitute a single LOT.
    In the U.S. market, Buchanan had both EP and CEP sales. Buchanan 
reported EP sales to end-users and distributors, via the affiliated 
sales agent BLS, through multiple channels of distribution, including 
mill-direct sales, sales that traveled through reload facilities, and 
sales made via resellers. These EP channels of distribution do not 
significantly differ from the channels of distribution in the home 
market. Because the sales process and freight services were similar, we 
preliminarily determine that EP sales in these five channels of 
distribution constitute a single LOT, and therefore that this EP LOT is 
identical to the home-market LOT.
    With respect to CEP sales, Buchanan reported those sales that 
traveled through a U.S. reload yard. Consequently, we preliminary find 
a single CEP LOT. In determining whether separate LOTs exist between 
U.S. CEP sales and home-market sales, we examined the selling functions 
in the distribution chains and customer categories reported in both 
markets. In our analysis of LOTs for CEP sales, we consider only the 
selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of 
expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act.
    Buchanan's sales in the home and U.S. markets do not involve 
significantly different selling functions. Buchanan's Canadian-based 
services for its CEP sales were similar to the single home-market LOT 
with respect to sales process and freight arrangements. Because we are 
finding the LOT for CEP to be similar to the home-market LOT, we are 
making no LOT adjustment or CEP offset. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the 
Act.
    (C) Canfor
    Canfor reported four channels of distribution in the home market in 
its September 28, 2004, section A response, with seven customer 
categories. However, in accordance with the Department's instructions, 
Canfor added a fifth channel of distribution to each market for sales 
of remanufactured lumber, thereby reporting five channels of 
distribution in the home market. The first channel of distribution 
(channel 1) includes sales where merchandise was shipped directly from 
one of Canfor's sawmills to a Canadian customer. The second channel of 
distribution (channel 2) consists of sales made through reload centers, 
where merchandise was shipped from the primary mill through one or more 
lumber-handling and inventory yards before delivery to the end 
customer. The third channel of distribution (channel 3) includes sales 
made pursuant to VMI programs. The fourth channel of distribution 
(channel 4) includes sales made by Lakeland without Sinclar's 
assistance to employees or local lumber yards in the Prince George, 
British Columbia, area.
    We compared the selling functions in these five channels of 
distribution and found that they differed only slightly in that certain 
services were provided for VMI customers that were not provided to 
other channels including: inventory management, education on 
environmental issues, and in-store training. Also, office wholesalers 
(wholesalers that do not hold inventory), one of Canfor's customer 
categories, only purchased lumber through channel 1. In addition, home 
centers requested custom packing, wrapping, and bar coding. With 
respect to the sales process, freight and delivery services, custom-
packing services, providing technical information, inspecting quality 
claims, and participating in trade shows, the sales to all customer 
categories in all channels were similar in all respects. Accordingly, 
we preliminarily determine that home-market sales in these five 
channels of distribution constitute a single LOT.
    In the U.S. market, Canfor had both EP and CEP sales. Canfor 
reported the same first three channels of distribution for U.S. sales 
as it did for home market sales: The first channel of distribution 
(channel 1) includes sales where merchandise was shipped directly from 
one of Canfor's sawmills to a U.S. customer. The second channel of 
distribution (channel 2) consists of sales made through reload centers, 
where merchandise was shipped from the primary mill through one or more 
lumber-handling and inventory yards before delivery to the end 
customer. The third channel of distribution (channel 3) includes sales 
made pursuant to VMI programs. Canfor's fourth channel of distribution 
was for sales made through trading activity on the Chicago Mercantile 
Exchange. As noted above, in accordance with Department instructions, 
Canfor added a fifth channel of distribution to the each market for 
sales of remanufactured lumber. In addition, also in accordance with 
the Department's instructions, Canfor added a sixth U.S. channel of 
distribution for U.S. sales made out of Canadian reload locations. 
Canfor made EP sales, therefore, through channels 1, 4, 5, and 6. 
Moreover, these four EP channels of distribution do not significantly 
differ from the channels of distribution in the home market. 
Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that EP sales in these four 
channels of distribution constitute a single LOT and that this EP LOT 
is identical to the home-market LOT.
    With respect to CEP sales, Canfor reported that these sales were 
made through channels 2 (U.S. reload facilities), 3 (VMI customers), 
and 5 (sales made through remanufacturers). The selling functions 
performed for these three channels of distribution were not 
significantly different in terms of freight arrangements and inventory 
management; therefore, we preliminary determine there is only one CEP 
LOT.
    In determining whether separate LOTs exist between U.S. CEP sales 
and home-market sales, we examined the selling functions in the 
distribution chains and customer categories reported in both markets. 
In our analysis of LOTs for CEP sales, we consider only the selling 
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and 
profit under section 772(d) of the Act.
    Canfor's sales in the home and U.S. markets do not involve 
significantly different selling functions. Canfor's Canadian-based 
services for its CEP sales were similar to the single home-market LOT 
with respect to sales process and inventory management. Because we are 
finding the LOT for CEP sales to be similar to the home-market LOT, we 
are making no LOT adjustment or CEP offset. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of 
the Act.
    (D) Tembec
    Tembec reported four channels of distribution applicable to both 
markets. The first channel of distribution (channel 1) included direct 
sales from the mill to customers which included sales to wholesalers 
who took title to but not physical possession of the lumber and resold 
it to end-users. The second channel of distribution (channel 2) 
consisted of sales which were shipped through a reload center en route 
to the customer. The third channel of distribution (channel 3) 
consisted of sales made through VMIs located in Canada or the United 
States. The fourth (channel 4), consisted of sales where the customer 
picked-up the merchandise.

[[Page 33075]]

    We found that the first three home-market channels of distribution 
were similar with respect to both the sales process and freight 
services. While channel 4 sales did not receive freight arrangement, it 
was the same as the other channels in terms of sales process. We do not 
consider arrangement of freight alone to rise to the level of a 
separate LOT. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that home-market 
sales in these four channels of distribution constitute a single LOT.
    In the U.S. market, Tembec had both EP and CEP sales. Tembec 
reported EP sales to end-users and distributors through the channels 1, 
2, and 4. These three channels of distribution, as they apply to EP 
sales, do not differ from the three channels of distribution in the 
home market. Because the sales process, freight services (for channels 
1 and 2) and inventory maintenance were similar, we preliminarily 
determine that EP sales in these three channels of distribution 
constitute a single LOT and that this EP LOT is identical to the home-
market LOT.
    With respect to CEP sales, Tembec reported that these sales were 
made through two channels of distribution (2 and 3), and consisted of 
U.S. sales that either pass through a U.S. reload center en route to 
the customer, or go to a VMI. The selling functions related to freight 
and delivery for these two channels of distribution were not 
significantly different and, therefore, we preliminary determine there 
is only one CEP LOT.
    In determining whether separate LOTs exist between U.S. CEP sales 
and home-market sales, we examined the selling functions in the 
distribution chains and customer categories reported in both markets. 
In our analysis of LOTs for CEP sales, we consider only the selling 
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and 
profit under section 772(d) of the Act.
    Tembec's sales to end-users and distributors in the home market and 
in the U.S. market do not involve significantly different selling 
functions. Tembec's Canadian-based services for CEP sales were similar 
to the single home-market LOT with respect to sales process and freight 
arrangements. Because we are finding that the LOT for CEP sales to be 
similar to the home-market LOT, we are making no LOT adjustment or CEP 
offset. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    (E) Tolko
    Tolko reported two channels of distribution in the home market. The 
first channel of distribution (channel 1) included direct sales made by 
Tolko's North American Lumber Sales and Tolko Brokerage divisions from 
Tolko's Canadian mill production and may have been shipped either 
directly or through a reload center to customers. The second channel of 
distribution (channel 2) consisted of sales made principally by Tolko 
Brokerage and TDS divisions from inventory locations that contained 
softwood lumber produced by Tolko and various suppliers. We compared 
the sales process in each channel of distribution and found that the 
selling functions were similar for each channel. Accordingly, we 
preliminarily determine that home-market sales in these channels of 
distribution constitute a single LOT.
    In the U.S. market, Tolko had both EP and CEP sales. Tolko reported 
EP sales to U.S. customers through one channel of distribution. Similar 
to the home market, this channel included direct sales made by Tolko's 
North American Lumber sales and Tolko Brokerage divisions from Tolko's 
Canadian mill production and were shipped either directly or through a 
reload center to customers. Because the sales processes in this channel 
of distribution were similar, we preliminarily determine that there is 
a single EP LOT and that this EP LOT is identical to the home-market 
LOT.
    With respect to CEP sales, Tolko reported these sales through two 
channels of distribution. The first (channel 2), included sales by 
Tolko's North American Lumber Sales and Tolko Brokerage divisions from 
U.S. inventory reload centers to customers. The second (channel 3), 
consisted of sales made to U.S. companies pursuant to VMI contracts. 
The selling functions, including freight arrangements and order 
processing, for these two channels of distribution were not 
significantly different and, therefore, we preliminary determine there 
is only one CEP LOT.
    In determining whether separate LOTs exist between U.S. CEP sales 
and home-market sales, we examined the selling functions in the 
distribution chains and customer categories reported in both markets. 
In our analysis of LOTs for CEP sales, we consider only the selling 
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and 
profit under section 772(d) of the Act.
    Tolko's Canadian-based services for its CEP sales were similar to 
the single home-market LOT with respect to sales process and inventory 
management. Because we are finding the LOT for CEP sales to be similar 
to the home-market LOT, we are making no LOT adjustment or CEP offset. 
See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    (F) Weldwood
    Weldwood reported three channels of distribution and four customer 
categories in the home market. The first channel of distribution, 
channel 1, consists of sales from a mill directly to customers. The 
second channel of distribution, channel 2, comprises sales from a 
Canadian reload to customers. The third channel of distribution, 
channel 3, consists of sales through a VMI program. Although we found 
differences in the level of inventory maintenance and inventory 
management performed for the different channels, the three channels are 
similar with respect to the overall sales process, packing, freight 
services, invoicing, warranty claims, the granting of credit or debit 
adjustments, and the granting of early payment discounts. Accordingly, 
we preliminary determine that home market sales in these three channels 
of distribution constitute a single LOT.
    In the U.S. market, Weldwood made both EP and CEP sales. Weldwood 
reported EP sales to three customer categories through two channels of 
distribution, mill direct sales and sales through Canadian reloads. 
Although we found differences in the level of inventory maintenance 
performed for the different channels, the channels are similar with 
respect to the overall sales process, packing, freight services, 
invoicing, warranty claims, the granting of credit or debit 
adjustments, and the granting of early payment discounts. Therefore, we 
preliminarily determine that EP sales through the two channels of 
distribution constitute a single LOT. Further, we do not find that the 
selling functions for Weldwood's single home market LOT differ 
significantly from the selling functions for the LOT for EP sales. 
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that home market sales and EP 
sales are at an identical LOT.
    With respect to CEP sales, Weldwood's third channel of 
distribution, channel 3, comprises sales to customers through WSI, an 
affiliate of the International Paper Company (IP), Weldwood's parent 
company during the POR. WSI's only purpose was to hold inventory at 
U.S. reload locations. It had no facilities or employees in the United 
States. Weldwood made these sales from unaffiliated reload centers in 
the United States. All selling activities were performed by Weldwood 
sales personnel located in Canada.
    In determining whether separate LOTs exist between U.S. CEP sales 
and home-market sales, we examined the selling functions in the 
distribution chains and customer categories reported in both markets. 
In our analysis of LOTs for CEP sales, we consider only the selling 
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and 
profit under section 772(d) of the Act.

[[Page 33076]]

    Weldwood reported that all selling expenses for CEP sales are 
incurred in Canada. Further, Weldwood claimed that its Canadian-based 
services for CEP sales are the same as the services it performs for 
home market sales through a Canadian reload. See Weldwood's January 14, 
2005, section A questionnaire response at A-28 through A-31;\15\ see 
also Weldwood's March 10, 2005, sections A, B, and C supplemental 
questionnaire response at Appendix SA-5. Because all selling functions 
performed for CEP sales are similar to the selling functions of the 
home market LOT, we are making no LOT adjustment or CEP offset. See 
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The January 14, 2005, section A response refers to the 
rebracketed version of Weldwood's original section A response that 
was submitted on September 28, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (G) West Fraser
    West Fraser reported four channels of distribution in the home 
market. The first channel of distribution (channel 1) included sales 
made directly to end-users and distributors from a mill or origin 
reload. The second channel of distribution (channel 2) consisted of 
sales made to end-users and distributors through VMI programs. The 
third channel of distribution (channel 3) consisted of sales made to 
end-users and distributors through unaffiliated inventory locations. 
The fourth channel of distribution (channel 4) consisted of sales made 
to end-users and distributors from the Seehta mill through an origin 
reload. We compared these four channels of distribution and found that, 
while selling functions differed slightly with respect to the 
arrangement of freight and delivery for origin reload centers in 
channel 2 and the office handling sales in channel 3, all four channels 
were similar with respect to sales process, packing, freight services, 
inventory services, warranty services, and early payment discount 
services. Accordingly, we found that home-market sales in these three 
channels of distribution constitute a single LOT.
    In the U.S. market, West Fraser had both EP and CEP sales. For EP 
sales, West Fraser reported one channel of distribution. This channel 
of distribution only included sales made directly to end-users and 
distributors from a mill or origin reload. The channel of distribution 
for EP sales does not differ from the first channel of distribution 
within in the home market, except with respect to paper processing 
services in connection with brokerage and handling. Therefore, as both 
the above home and U.S. market channel of distribution are comparable 
in terms of selling functions, delivery and customer categories, the EP 
channel of distribution LOT is similar to the single home market LOT.
    With respect to CEP sales, West Fraser had two channels of 
distribution (channel 2 and 3). Both channels of distribution included 
sales to end-users and distributors through West Fraser's subsidiary, 
WFFP. The company WFFP is incorporated in the United States and was 
specifically created to act as the importer of record and hold title to 
lumber sold in the United States. It has no facilities or employees in 
the United States. The second channel of distribution (channel 2) does 
not differ from the second channel of distribution within the home 
market, except with respect to paper processing services in connection 
with brokerage and handling. For the third channel of distribution 
(channel 3), sales were made from unaffiliated destination reload 
centers in the United States by sales people located in Canada.
    In determining whether separate LOTs exist between U.S. CEP sales 
and home-market sales, we examined the selling functions in the 
distribution chains and customer categories reported in both markets. 
In our analysis of LOTs for CEP sales, we consider only the selling 
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and 
profit under section 772(d) of the Act.
    West Fraser's Canadian-based services for its CEP sales include 
order-taking, invoicing and inventory management. West Fraser's 
Canadian sales agents occasionally arrange for reload center excess 
storage and freight from U.S. destination reload centers to 
unaffiliated end users. Any services occurring in the United States are 
provided by the unaffiliated reload centers, which are paid a fee by 
West Fraser. These expenses have been deducted from the CEP starting 
price as movement expenses.
    West Fraser's sales to end-users and distributors in the home 
market and its CEP sales in the U.S. market do not involve 
significantly different selling functions. Specifically, the CEP LOT 
was similar to the single home-market LOT with respect to sales process 
and inventory maintenance. Therefore, we are making no LOT adjustment 
or CEP offset. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    (H) Weyerhaeuser
    Weyerhaeuser reported seven channels of distribution in the home 
market, with seven customer categories.\16\ The channels of 
distribution are: 1) mill-direct sales; 2) VMI sales; 3) mill-direct 
sales made through WBM; 4) sales made out of inventory by WBM; 5) SWL 
and B.C. Coastal Group's (BCC) sales through Canadian reloads; 6) BCC's 
sales through processing facilities; and 7) WBM cross dock sales.\17\ 
To determine whether separate LOTs exist in the home market, we 
examined the selling functions, the chain of distribution, and the 
customer categories reported in the home market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Weyerhaeuser also reported a customer category for employee 
sales in the home market. However, we removed these sales from the 
margin calculation and LOT analysis.
    \17\ Even though there are only seven channels of distribution 
in the home market, Weyerhaeuser designated cross dock sales as 
channel eight in the questionnaire response and accompanying 
database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each of its channels of distribution, Weyerhaeuser's selling 
functions included invoicing, freight arrangement, product training, 
marketing and promotional activities, advanced shipping notices, and 
order status information. Weyerhaeuser's sales made out of inventory by 
WBM (channel 4) appear to involve substantially more selling functions, 
and to be made at a different point in the chain of distribution than 
mill-direct sales. WBM functions as a distributor for BCC and SWL, and 
operates as a reseller for unaffiliated parties. WBM operates a number 
of customer service centers (CSC) throughout Canada where it provides 
local sales offices and just-in-time inventory (JIT) service for its 
customers. Generally, BCC and SWL make the sale to WBM, after which the 
merchandise is sold to the final customer by WBM's local sales force. 
Freight must be arranged to the WBM inventory location and then to the 
final customer. CSCs will also engage in minor further manufacturing to 
fill a customer order, if the desired product is not in inventory. 
Additionally, WBM sells from inventory through its trading group 
locations (TGs).
    WBM also sells on a mill-direct basis (channel 3) but does not 
provide the JIT service for such transactions. Therefore, we do not 
consider mill-direct sales made through WBM to be at a separate LOT 
from mill-direct sales made by SWL and BCC. Additionally, we compared 
sales invoiced from Canadian reloads (channel 5) and sales made from 
BCC's processing mills (channel 6) to the mill direct sales and found 
that the selling activities did not differ to the degree necessary to 
warrant separate LOTs. Our analysis of cross dock sales (channel 7) 
indicates that they are most similar to WBM's warehouse sales. The 
specialized nature of these sales

[[Page 33077]]

requires additional services that direct sales do not. Like WBM 
warehouse sales, cross dock merchandise is usually part of a JIT order 
and is shipped from a mill to an inventory location. Even though the 
merchandise may not be commingled or unpacked, it often enters the 
warehouse and requires additional services for two freight segments and 
loading and unloading. Therefore, we consider cross dock sales to be at 
the same LOT as WBM warehouse sales.
    Sales made through VMI arrangements (channel 2) also appear to 
involve significantly more selling activities than mill-direct sales. 
SWL has a designated sales team responsible for VMI sales which works 
with the customers to develop a sales volume plan, manages the flow of 
products and replenishing process, and aligns the sales volume plan 
with Weyerhaeuser's production plans. It also offers extra services 
such as bar coding, cut-in-two, half packing, and precision end 
trimming.
    We analyzed Weyerhaeuser's customer categories in relation to the 
channels of distribution and application of selling functions. Each 
channel services multiple customer categories with channels 1, 2, 3, 4, 
5, and 7 serving at least six customer categories. We found there were 
not significant differences in the application of selling functions by 
customer and instead the activities depended on the channel of 
distribution. Therefore, customer category is not a useful indicator of 
LOT for Weyerhaeuser's home market sales.
    Because VMI, WBM inventory, and WBM cross dock sales involve 
significantly more selling functions than the mill-direct sales, we 
consider them to be at a more advanced LOT for purposes of the 
preliminary results. While the selling activities for VMI, WBM 
inventory, and cross dock sales are not identical, the principal 
selling activity for all three is JIT inventory maintenance. Thus, we 
consider them to be at the same LOT. Accordingly, we find that there 
are two LOTs in the home market, mill-direct (HM1) (encompassing 
channels 1, 3, 5, and 6) and VMI, WBM sales out of inventory, and cross 
dock sales (HM2) (encompassing channels 2, 4, and 7).
    Weyerhaeuser reported eight channels of distribution in the U.S. 
market, with eight customer categories. The channels of distribution 
are: 1) mill-direct sales; 2) VMI sales; 3) WBM direct sales; 4) WBM 
U.S. inventory sales; 5) SWL sales through U.S. reloads; 6) SWL and BCC 
sales through Canadian reloads; 7) sales from BCC's processing 
facilities; and 8) WBM cross dock sales. In determining whether 
separate LOTs existed between U.S. and home market sales, we examined 
the selling functions, the chain of distribution, and customer 
categories reported in the U.S. market.
    With regard to the mill-direct sales to the United States (channels 
1 and 3), Weyerhaeuser has the same selling activities as it does for 
mill-direct sales in Canada. Likewise, we consider sales invoiced from 
Canadian reloads (channel 6) and sales made from BCC processing mills 
(channel 7) to be at the same LOT as the direct sales. Therefore, where 
possible, we matched the U.S. mill-direct sales (U.S.1) (encompassing 
channels 1, 3, 6, and 7) to the Canadian mill-direct sales (HM1). The 
other channels consist of CEP sales as addressed below.
    Weyerhaeuser's Canadian selling functions for VMI sales to the 
United States (channel 2) include the similar selling functions 
performed for home market VMI sales, as described above, except that 
the sales are managed by SWL Western in the United States. As a result, 
the selling functions, with the exception of arranging freight to the 
VMI locations, are performed in the United States. Therefore, after the 
deduction of U.S. expenses and profit, we find that the U.S. VMI sales 
(U.S.1) are made at the same LOT as home market direct sales (HM1), and 
we have matched them accordingly in the margin program.
    SWL's sales through U.S. reloads (channel 5) also appear to have 
selling functions performed in Canada and the United States. While 
Weyerhaeuser states that it maintains JIT inventory for its U.S. 
customers at these reloads, many of the selling functions are managed 
by SWL Western in the United States. After the deduction of U.S. 
expenses and profit, these sales do not appear to be at a different 
point in the chain of distribution than mill-direct sales in Canada. 
Therefore, for purposes of the preliminary results, we consider SWL's 
sales through U.S. reloads to be at the same LOT as its mill-direct 
sales (U.S.1 and HM1), and we have matched them accordingly.
    With regard to WBM's U.S. inventory sales (channel 4) significant 
selling activities occur in the United States, such as maintaining 
local sales offices and JIT, and arranging freight to the final 
customer. The selling functions performed in Canada are the same 
selling functions performed for mill-direct sales. Therefore, after the 
deduction of U.S. expenses and profit, we find that WBM's U.S. 
inventory sales are at the same LOT as mill-direct sales (U.S.1 and 
HM1), and we have matched them accordingly. We found that cross dock 
sales (channel 8) were most similar to WBM warehouse sales and, as 
such, designated them at the same LOT (i.e., U.S.1.)
    As was the case with Canadian sales, each U.S. channel of 
distribution services multiple customer categories. Channels 1-5 have 
buyers from at least five customer categories. The other three channels 
have two to four customer categories each but also realized 
significantly fewer sales during the POR. We found there were not 
significant differences in the application of selling functions by 
customer and instead the activities depended on the channel of 
distribution. Therefore, customer category is not a useful indicator of 
LOT for Weyerhaeuser's U.S. sales.
    Because we found a pattern of consistent price differences between 
LOTs, where we matched across LOTs, we made an LOT adjustment under 
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date 
of the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average margins exist for the period May 1, 2003, 
through April 30, 2004:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Weighted-Average
                     Producer                        Margin (Percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abitibi (and its affiliates Abitibi-Consolidated                    2.53
 Company of Canada, Produits Forestiers Petit
 Paris Inc., Societe en Commandite Scierie
 Opitciwan, Produits Forestiers La Tuque Inc.)....

[[Page 33078]]

 
Buchanan (and its affiliates Atikokan Forest                        2.49
 Products Ltd., Long Lake Forest Products Inc.,
 Nakina Forest Products Limited,\18\ Buchanan
 Distribution Inc., Buchanan Forest Products Ltd.,
 Great West Timber Ltd., Dubreuil Forest Products
 Ltd., Northern Sawmills Inc., McKenzie Forest
 Products Inc., Buchanan Northern Hardwoods Inc.,
 Northern Wood, and Solid Wood Products Inc.).....
Canfor \19\* (and its affiliates Canadian Forest                    1.42
 Products, Ltd., Daaquam Lumber Inc., Lakeland
 Mills Ltd., The Pas Lumber Company Ltd., and
 Skeena Cellulose)................................
Tembec (and its affiliates Marks Lumber Ltd.,                       3.16
 791615 Ontario Limited (Excel Forest Products),
 Produits Forestiers Temrex Limited Partnership
 \20\)............................................
Tolko (and its affiliate Gilbert Smith Forest                       3.22
 Products Ltd.)...................................
Weldwood..........................................                  5.62
West Fraser (and its affiliates West Fraser Forest                  0.51
 Products Inc., and Seehta Forest Products Ltd....
Weyerhaeuser (and its affiliate Weyerhaeuser                       4.74
 Saskatchewan Ltd.)...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ We note that Nakina Forest Products Limited is a division of Long
  Lake Forest Products, Inc, an affiliate of Buchanan Lumber Sales.
\19\ We note that this margin reflects a weighted-average of Canfor's
  and Slocan's respective margins. See Collapsing Determinations section
  above.
\20\ We note that Produits Forestiers Temrex Limited Partnership is the
  same entity as the company Produits Forestiers Temrex Usine St.
  Alphonse, Inc. included in the July 1, 2003, initiation notice. See
  Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR
  39059 (July 1, 2003).

REVIEW-SPECIFIC AVERAGE RATE APPLICABLE TO THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Weighted-Average
                     Producer                        Margin (Percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 by 4 Lumber Sales Ltd...........................
605666 BC Ltd.....................................
9027-7971 Quebec Inc. (Scierie Marcel Dumont).....
9098-5573 Quebec Inc. (K.C.B. International)......
AFA Forest Products Inc...........................
A. L. Stuckless & Sons Limited....................
AJ Forest Products Ltd............................
Alexandre Cote Ltee...............................
Allmac Lumber Sales Ltd...........................
Allmar International..............................
Alpa Lumber Mills Inc.............................
American Bayridge Corporation.....................
Apex Forest Products, Inc.........................
Apollo Forest Products Limited....................
Aquila Cedar Products Ltd.........................
Arbutus Manufacturing Limited.....................
Ardew Wood Products, Ltd..........................
Armand Duhamel & Fils Inc.........................
Ashley Colter (1961) Limited......................
Aspen Planers Ltd.................................
Associated Cedar Products.........................
Atco Lumber.......................................
Atlantic Pressure Treating Ltd....................
Atlantic Warehousing Limited......................
Atlas Lumber (Alberta) Ltd........................
AWL Forest Products...............................
B & L Forest Products Ltd.........................
Bakerview Forest Products Inc.....................
Bardeaux et Cedres St-Honore Inc. (Bardeaux et
 Cedres)..........................................
Barrett Lumber Company............................
Barrette-Chapais Ltee.............................
Barry Maedel Woods & Timber.......................
Bathurst Lumber (Division of UPM-Kymmene Miramichi
 Inc.)............................................
Beaubois Coaticook Inc............................
Blackville Lumber (Division of UPM-Kymmene
 Miramichi Inc.)..................................
Blanchette et Blanchette Inc......................
Bloomfield Lumber Limited.........................
Bois Cobodex (1995) Inc...........................
Bois Daaquam Inc..................................
Bois De L'Est F.B. Inc............................
Bois Granval G.D.S. Inc...........................
Bois Kheops Inc...................................
Bois Marsoui G.D.S. Inc...........................
Bois Neos Inc.....................................
Bois Nor Que Wood Inc.............................
Boisaco Inc.......................................
Boscus Canada Inc.................................
Boucher Forest Products Ltd.......................
Bowater Canadian Forest Products Inc..............
Bowater Incorporated..............................
Bridgeside Forest Industries, Ltd.................
Bridgeside Higa Forest Industries Ltd.............
Brittainia Lumber Company Limited.................
Brouwer Excavating Ltd............................
Brunswick Valley Lumber...........................
Buchanan Lumber...................................
Busque & Laflamme Inc.............................
BW Creative Wood..................................
Byrnexco Inc......................................
C. E. Harrison & Son Ltd..........................
Caledon Log Homes (FEWO)..........................
Caledonia Forest Products Ltd.....................
Cambie Cedar Products Ltd.........................
Canadian Lumber Company Ltd.......................
Cando Contracting Ltd.............................
Canex International Lumber Sales Ltd..............
CanWel Building Materials Ltd.....................
CanWel Distribution Ltd...........................
Canyon Lumber Company Ltd.........................
Cape Cod Wood Siding Inc..........................
Cardinal Lumber Manufacturing & Sales Inc.........

[[Page 33079]]

 
Careau Bois Inc...................................
Carrier & Begin Inc...............................
Carrier Forest Products Ltd.......................
Carrier Lumber Ltd................................
Carson Lake Lumber................................
Cattermole Timber.................................
CDS Lumber Products...............................
Cedarland Forest Products Ltd.....................
Cedrico Lumber Inc. (Bois d'Oeuvre Cedrico Inc.)..
Central Cedar, Ltd................................
Centurion Lumber Manufacturing (1983) Ltd.........
Chaleur Sawmills..................................
Chasyn Wood Technologies Inc......................
Cheminis Lumber Inc...............................
Cheslatta Forest Products Ltd.....................
Chisholm's (Roslin) LTd...........................
Choicewood Products Inc...........................
City Lumber Sales and Services Limited............
Clair Industrial Dev. Corp. Ltd...................
Clermond Hamel Ltee...............................
Coast Clear Wood Ltd..............................
Colonial Fence Mfg. Ltd...........................
Columbia Mills Ltd................................
Comeau Lumber Limited.............................
Commonwealth Plywood Company Ltd..................
Cooper Creek Cedar Ltd............................
Cottles Island Lumber Co. Ltd.....................
Cowichan Lumber Ltd...............................
Crystal Forest Industries Ltd.....................
Curley Cedar Post & Rail..........................
Cushman Lumber Company Inc........................
D. S. McFall Holdings Ltd.........................
Dakeryn Industries Ltd............................
Deep Cove Lumber..................................
Delco Forest Products.............................
Delta Cedar Products..............................
Devlin Timber Company (1992) Limited..............
Devon Lumber Co. Ltd..............................
Doman Forest Products Limited.....................
Doman Industries Limited..........................
Doman Western Lumber Ltd..........................
Domexport Inc.....................................
Domtar Inc........................................
Downie Timber Ltd.................................
Dunkley Lumber Ltd................................
E. Tremblay Et. Fils Ltee.........................
Eacan Timber Canada Ltd...........................
Eacan Timber Limited..............................
Eacan Timber USA Ltd..............................
East Fraser Fiber Co. Ltd.........................
Eastwood Forest Products Inc......................
Ed Bobocel Lumber 1993 Ltd........................
Edwin Blaikie Lumber Ltd..........................
Elmira Wood Products Limited......................
Elmsdale Lumber Company Ltd.......................
ER Probyn Export Ltd..............................
Errington Cedar Products..........................
Evergreen Empire Mills Incorporated...............
EW Marketing......................................
F.L. Bodogh Lumber Co. Ltd........................
Falcon Lumber Limited.............................
Faulkner Wood Specialties Limited.................
Federated Co-operatives Limited...................
Fenclo Ltee.......................................
Finmac Lumber Limited.............................
Fontaine Inc., J. A. and its affiliates Fontaine
 et fils Inc., Bois Fontaine Inc., Gestion Natanis
 Inc., Les Placements Jean-Paul Fontaine Ltee.
 Forex Log & Lumber...............................
Forstex Industries Inc............................
Forwest Wood Specialties Inc......................
Fraser Pacific Forest Products Inc................
Fraser Pacific Lumber Company.....................
Fraser Papers Inc.................................
Fraser Pulp Chips Ltd.............................
Frasierview Cedar Products Ltd....................
Frontier Mills Inc................................
G.D.S. Valoribois Inc.............................
Galloway Lumber Co. Ltd...........................
Gerard Crete & Fils Inc...........................
Gestofor Inc......................................
Gogama Forest Products............................
Goldwood Industries Ltd...........................
Gorman Bros. Lumber Ltd...........................
Great Lakes MSR Lumber Ltd........................
Greenwood Forest Products.........................
Groupe Lebel......................................
H. A. Fawcett & Son Limited.......................
H. J. Crabbe & Sons Ltd...........................
Haida Forest Products Ltd.........................
Hainesville Sawmill Ltd...........................
Harrison's Home Building Centers..................
Harry Freeman & Son Ltd...........................
Hefler Forest Products Ltd........................
Hi-Knoll Cedar Inc................................
Hilmoe Forest Products Ltd........................
Hoeg Brothers Lumber Ltd..........................
Holdright Lumber Products Ltd.....................
Hudson Mitchell & Sons Lumber Inc.................
Hughes Lumber Specialties Inc.....................
Hyak Specialty Wood Products Ltd..................
Industrial Wood Specialties.......................
Industries G.D.S. Inc.............................
Industries Perron Inc.............................
Interior Joinery Ltd..............................
International Forest Products Ltd.................
Isidore Roy Limited...............................
Ivis Wood Products................................
Ivor Forest Products Ltd..........................
J & G Logworks....................................
J. A. Turner & Sons (1987) Limited................
J.D. Irving, Ltd..................................
J.S. Jones Timber Ltd.............................
Jackpine Engineered Wood Products.................
Jackpine Forest Products Ltd......................
Jackpine Group of Companies.......................
Jamestown Lumber Company Limited..................
Jasco Forest Products Ltd.........................

[[Page 33080]]

 
Jeffery Hanson....................................
Julimar Lumber Co. Limited........................
Kenora Forest Products Ltd........................
Kent Trusses Ltd..................................
Kenwood Lumber Ltd................................
Kispiox Forest Products...........................
Kitwanga Lumber Co. Ltd...........................
Kruger, Inc.......................................
La Crete Sawmills Ltd.............................
Lakeburn Lumber Limited...........................
Lamco Forest Products.............................
Landmark Structural Lumber........................
Landmark Truss & Lumber Inc.......................
Langely Timber Company Ltd........................
Langevin Forest Products, Inc.....................
Lattes Waska Laths Inc............................
Lawsons Lumber Company Ltd........................
Lazy S Lumber.....................................
Lecours Lumber Co. Limited........................
Ledwidge Lumber Co., Ltd..........................
Leggett & Platt (B.C.) Ltd........................
Leggett & Platt Inc...............................
Leggett & Platt Ltd...............................
Les Bois d'Oeuvre Beaudoin & Gauthier Inc.........
Les Bois S &P Grondin Inc.........................
Les Chantiers Chibougamau Ltee....................
Les Produits Forestiers D. G. Ltee................
Les Produits Forestiers Dube Inc..................
Les Produits Forestiers F.B.M. Inc................
Les Produits Forestiers Maxibois Inc..............
Les Produits Forestiers Miradas Inc(Miradas Forest
 Products Inc.)...................................
Les Scieries Du Lac St-Jean Inc...................
Les Scieries Jocelyn Lavoie Inc...................
Leslie Forest Products Ltd........................
Lignum Ltd........................................
Lindsay Lumber Ltd................................
Liskeard Lumber Limited...........................
Littles Lumber Ltd................................
Lonestar Lumber Inc...............................
Louisiana Pacific Corporation.....................
Lousiana Malakwa..................................
LP Canada Ltd.....................................
LP Engineered Wood Products Ltd...................
Lulumco Inc.......................................
Lyle Forest Products Ltd..........................
M & G Higgins Lumber Ltd..........................
M. L. Wilkins & Son Ltd...........................
MacTara Limited...................................
Maibec Industries Inc. (Industries Maibec Inc.)...
Manitou Forest Products Ltd.......................
Maple Creek Saw Mills Inc.........................
Marcel Lauzon Inc.................................
Marine Way........................................
Mary's River Lumber...............................
Marwood Inc.......................................
Marwood Ltd.......................................
Materiaux Blanchet Inc............................
Max Meilleur et Fils Ltee.........................
McCorquindale Holdings Ltd........................
McNutt Lumber Company Ltd.........................
Mercury Manufacturing Inc.........................
Meunier Lumber Company Ltd........................
MF Bernard Inc....................................
Mid America Lumber................................
Mid Valley Lumber Specialties Ltd.................
Midway Lumber Mills Ltd...........................
Mill & Timber Products Ltd........................
Millar Western Forest Products Ltd................
Millco Wood Products Ltd..........................
Miramichi Lumber Products.........................
Mobilier Rustique (Beauce) Inc....................
Monterra Lumber Mills Limited.....................
Mountain View Specialty Reload Inc................
Murray A Reeves Forestry Limited..................
Murray Bros. Lumber Company Limited...............
N. F. Douglas Lumber Limited......................
Nechako Lumber Co., Ltd...........................
Newcastle Lumber Co. Inc..........................
New West Lumber...................................
Nexfor Inc........................................
Nexfor Norbord....................................
Nicholson and Cates Limited.......................
Nickel Lake Lumber................................
Norbord Industries Inc............................
Norbord Juniper and Norbord's sawmills at La Sarre
 Senneterre Quebec................................
NorSask Forest Products Inc.......................
North American Forest Products....................
North American Forest Products Ltd (Division
 Belanger)........................................
North Atlantic Lumber Inc.........................
North Enderby Distribution Ltd (N.E. Distribution)
North Enderby Timber Ltd..........................
North Mitchell Lumber Co. Ltd., Saran Cedar.......
North Shore Timber Ltd............................
North Star Wholesale Lumber Ltd...................
Northchip Ltd.....................................
Northland Forest Products Ltd.....................
Olav Haavaldsrud Timber Company Limited...........
Olympic Industries Inc............................
Optibois Inc......................................
P.A. Lumber & Planning Limited....................
Pacific Lumber Company............................
Pacific Lumber Remanufacturing Inc................
Pacific Northern Rail Contractors Corp............
Pacific Specialty Wood Products Ltd. (formerly
 Clearwood Industries Ltd.).......................
Pacific Wood Specialties..........................
Pallan Timber Products Ltd........................
Palliser Lumber Sales Ltd.........................
Pan West Wood Products Ltd........................
Paragon Ventures Ltd. (Vernon Kiln and Millwork,
 Ltd. and 582912 BC, Ltd.)........................

[[Page 33081]]

 
Parallel Wood Products Ltd........................
Pastway Planing Limited...........................
Pat Power Forest Products Corporation.............
Patrick Lumber Company............................
Paul Fontaine Ltee................................
Paul Vallee Inc...................................
Paul Vallee.......................................
Peak Forest Products Ltd..........................
Pharlap Forest Products Inc.......................
Pheonix Forest Products Inc.......................
Pleasant Valley Remanufacturing Ltd...............
Pope & Talbot, Inc................................
Porcupine Wood Products Ltd.......................
Portbec Forest Products Ltd. (Les Produits
 Forestiers Portbec Ltee.)........................
Portelance Lumber Capreol Ltd.....................
Power Wood Corp...................................
Precibois Inc.....................................
Preparabois (2003) Inc............................
Prime Lumber Limited..............................
Pro Lumber Inc....................................
Produits Forestiers P. Proulx Inc.................
Promobois G.D.S. Inc..............................
Quadra Wood Products Ltd..........................
R. Fryer Forest Products Limited..................
Raintree Forest Products Inc......................
Raintree Lumber Specialties Ltd...................
Ramco Lumber Ltd..................................
Redtree Cedar Products Ltd........................
Redwood Value Added Products Inc..................
Rembos Inc........................................
Rene Bernard Inc..................................
Ridgewood Forest Products Ltd.....................
Rielly Industrial Lumber Inc......................
Riverside Forest Products Limited.................
Rocam Lumber Inc. (Bois Rocam Inc.)...............
Rojac Cedar Products Inc..........................
Rojac Enterprises Inc.............................
Roland Boulanger & Cie Ltee.......................
Russell White Lumber Limited......................
Sauder Moldings, Inc. (Ferndale)..................
Sauder Industries Limited.........................
Schols Cedar Products.............................
Scierie A&M St-Pierre Inc.........................
Scierie Adrien Arseneault Ltee....................
Scierie Alexandre Lemay & Fils Inc................
Scierie Chaleur...................................
Scierie Dion et Fils Inc..........................
Scierie Gallichan Inc.............................
Scierie Gauthier Ltee.............................
Scierie La Patrie, Inc............................
Scierie Landrienne Inc............................
Scierie Lapointe & Roy Ltee.......................
Scierie Leduc, Division of Stadacona Inc..........
Scierie Nord-Sud Inc. (North-South Sawmill Inc.)..
Scierie P.S.E. Inc................................
Scierie St. Elzear Inc............................
Scierie Tech Inc..................................
Scieries du Lac St. Jean Inc......................
Selkirk Specialty Wood Ltd........................
Sexton Lumber.....................................
Seycove Forest Products Limited...................
Seymour Creek Cedar Products Ltd..................
Shawood Lumber Inc................................
Sigurdson Bros. Logging Company Ltd...............
Silvermere Forest Products Inc....................
Sinclar Enterprises Ltd.[midast]..................
South Beach Trading Inc...........................
South River Planing Mills Inc.....................
South-East Forest Products Ltd....................
Spray Lake Sawmills (1980) Ltd....................
Spruce Forest Products Ltd........................
Spruce Products Ltd...............................
St. Anthony Lathing Ltd...........................
Stag Timber.......................................
Standard Building Products Ltd....................
Still Creek Forest Products Ltd...................
Stuart Lake Lumber Co. Ltd........................
Stuart Lake Marketing Inc.........................
Sunbury Cedar Sales Ltd...........................
Suncoast Lumber & Milling.........................
Sundance Forest Industries........................
SWP Industries Inc................................
Sylvanex Lumber Products Inc......................
Taiga Forest Products.............................
Tall Tree Lumber Company..........................
Tarpin Lumber Incorporated........................
Taylor Lumber Company Ltd.........................
Teal Cedar Products Ltd...........................
Teal-Jones Group..................................
Teeda Corp........................................
Terminal Forest Products Ltd......................
T.F. Specialty Sawmill............................
TFL Forest Ltd....................................
Timber Ridge Forest Products......................
TimberWorld Forest Products Inc...................
T'loh Forest Products Limited.....................
Top Quality Lumber Ltd............................
T. P. Downey & Sons Ltd...........................
Treeline Wood Products Ltd........................
Triad Forest Products.............................
Twin Rivers Cedar Products Ltd....................
Tyee Timber Products Ltd..........................
Uneeda Wood Products..............................
Uniforet Inc......................................
Uniforet Scierie-Pate.............................
Vancouver Specialty Cedar Products................
Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products................
Vandermeer Forest Products (Canada) Ltd...........
Vanderwell Contractors (1971) Ltd.................
Vanport Canada, Co................................
Vernon Kiln and Millwork, Ltd.....................
Visscher Lumber Inc...............................
W. C. Edwards Lumber..............................
W. I. Woodtone Industries Inc.....................
Welco Lumber Corporation..........................
Wentworth Lumber Ltd..............................

[[Page 33082]]

 
Werenham Forest Products..........................
West Bay Forest Products & Manufacturing Ltd......
West Can Rail Ltd.................................
West Chilcotin Forest Products Ltd................
West Hastings Lumber Products.....................
Western Cleanwood Preservers Ltd..................
Western Commercial Millwork Inc...................
Western Wood Preservers Ltd.......................
Weston Forest Corp................................
West-Wood Industries..............................
White Spruce Forst Products Ltd...................
Wilfrid Paquet & Fils Ltee........................
Wilkerson Forest Products Ltd.....................
Williams Brothers Limited.........................
Winnipeg Forest Products, Inc.....................
Woodko Enterprises, Ltd...........................
Woodland Forest Products Ltd......................
Woodline Forest Products Ltd......................
Woodtone Industries Inc...........................
Woodwise Lumber Ltd...............................
Wynndel Box & Lumber Co. Ltd......................
Zelensky Bros. Forest Products....................                 2.44
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* We note that, during the POR, Sinclar Enterprises Ltd. (Sinclar) acted
  as an affiliated reseller for Lakeland, an affiliate of Canfor. In
  this review, we reviewed the sales of Canfor and its affiliates;
  therefore, Canfor's weighted-average margin applies to all sales
  produced by any member of the Canfor Group and sold by Sinclar. As
  Sinclar also separately requested a review, any sales produced by
  another manufacturer and sold by Sinclar will receive the ``Review-
  Specific Average'' rate.

    Please note that the names of the companies are listed above 
exactly as they will be included in instructions to CBP. Any alternate 
names, spellings, affiliated companies or divisions will not be 
considered or included in any instructions to CBP unless they are 
brought to the attention of the Department in a case brief. There will 
be no exceptions.

Disclosure

    The Department will disclose calculations performed in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Public Hearing

    An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any 
hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of 
publication, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties 
may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days 
after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Rebuttal 
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in 
such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the 
date of publication. Parties who submit arguments are requested to 
submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief 
summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. Further, the 
parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with 
an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on 
diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this 
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis 
of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication 
of these preliminary results.

Assessment

    Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all 
appropriate entries. We will calculate importer-specific duty 
assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of 
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total 
entered value of the examined sales for that importer. For the 
companies requesting a review, but not selected for examination and 
calculation of individual rates, we will calculate a weighted-average 
assessment rate based on all importer-specific assessment rates 
excluding any which are de minimis or margins determined entirely on 
adverse facts available. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, 
we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject 
merchandise by that importer.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate 
listed above for each specific company will be the rate established in 
the final results of this review, except if a rate is less than 0.5 
percent, and therefore de minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) 
for the non-selected companies we will calculate a weighted-average 
cash deposit rate based on all the company-specific cash deposit rates, 
excluding de minimis margins or margins determined entirely on adverse 
facts available; (3) for previously reviewed or investigated companies 
not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue 
to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; 
(4) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior 
review, or the less-than-fair-value (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 merchandise; and (5) 
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this 
or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit 
rate will be 11.54, the ``All Others'' rate calculated in the 
Department's recent determination under section 129 of the Uruguay 
Round Agreement Act. See Notice of Determination Under Section 129 of 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Antidumping Measures on Certain 
Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, 70 FR 22636 (May 2, 2005). These 
cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entities 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 31, 2005.
Susan H. Kuhbach,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-2885 Filed 6-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S