[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54359-54360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-5019]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-818]


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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 7, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of its second administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on low enriched uranium (LEU) from 
France. The review covers one producer of the subject merchandise. The 
period of review (POR) is February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004. 
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to 
the preliminary results. For the final dumping margins see the ``Final 
Results of Review'' section below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myrna Lobo or Elfi Blum at (202) 482-
2371 or (202) 482-0197, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 7, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of the second administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on LEU from France. See Low Enriched Uranium 
From France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 70 FR 10957 (March 7, 2005), (Preliminary Results).
    We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On June 
30, 2005, we received case briefs from the sole respondent, Eurodif 
S.A., Compagnie G[eacute]n[eacute]rale Des Mati[egrave]res 
Nucl[eacute]aires, S.A. and COGEMA, Inc. (collectively, Eurodif/
COGEMA), and the petitioner, the United States Enrichment Corporation 
and USEC Inc. (collectively, USEC). Eurodif/COGEMA and USEC submitted 
their rebuttal briefs on July 8, 2005.
    On June 15-17, 2005, the Department conducted verification of the 
information submitted by respondent on behalf of 
[Eacute]lectricit[eacute] de France (EdF), an affiliated electricity 
supplier, and of the research and development (R&D) activities 
conducted by the Commissariat [agrave] l'Energie Atomique (CEA). 
Eurodif/COGEMA and USEC submitted comments to the verification report 
on July 22, 2005, and July 25, 2005, respectively. Eurodif/COGEMA 
submitted its rebuttal comments on July 28, 2005 (amended on August 2, 
2005), and USEC submitted its rebuttal comments on July 27, 2005.
    A hearing was held on August 4, 2005. At petitioner's request, a 
portion of the hearing was conducted on a closed basis, for purposes of 
discussing business proprietary information.
    On August 25, 2005, the Department placed on the record of this 
review new information pertaining to USEC's R&D activities into 
centrifuge technology and invited the parties to comment. Eurodif/
COGEMA and the petitioner filed their comments on August 29, 2005, and 
their rebuttals on August 31, 2005.

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this order is all low enriched uranium 
(LEU). LEU is enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) with a U 
235 product assay of less than 20 percent that has not been 
converted into another chemical form, such as UO2, or 
fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies, regardless of the means by 
which the LEU is produced (including LEU produced through the down-
blending of highly enriched uranium).
    Certain merchandise is outside the scope of this order. 
Specifically, this order does not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride 
with a U\235\ assay of 20 percent or greater, also known as highly 
enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is not covered by the 
scope of this order. For purposes of this order, fabricated uranium is 
defined as enriched uranium dioxide (UO 2), whether or not 
contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural uranium 
concentrates (U3O8) with a U\235\ concentration 
of no greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates 
converted into uranium hexafluoride with a U\235\ concentration of no 
greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the scope of this order.
    Also excluded from this order is LEU owned by a foreign utility 
end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user 
solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium 
dioxide (UO2) and/or fabrication into fuel assemblies so 
long as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel assemblies deemed to 
incorporate such imported LEU (i) remain in the possession and control 
of the U.S. fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their designed 
transporter(s) while in U.S. customs territory, and (ii) are re-
exported within eighteen (18) months of entry of the LEU for 
consumption by the end-user in a nuclear reactor outside the United 
States. Such entries must be accompanied by the certifications of the 
importer and end-user.
    The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at 
subheading 2844.20.0020. Subject merchandise may also enter under 
2844.20.0030, 2844.20.0050, and 2844.40.00. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act), on June 15-17, 2005 we verified the information submitted by 
Eurodif/COGEMA regarding its POR purchases of electricity from EdF, and 
R&D expenses incurred during the POR by the CEA and attributable to 
Eurodif/COGEMA. We used standard

[[Page 54360]]

verification procedures, including on-site examination of relevant 
accounting and production records and original source documents 
provided by Eurodif/COGEMA. Our verification results are outlined in 
the Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director, From Ernest Z. Gziryan, 
Senior Accountant; Ref.: Administrative Review of Low Enriched Uranium 
from France; Subj.: Verification Report on the Cost of Production Data 
Submitted by Electricit[eacute] de France (July 11, 2005) (EdF 
Verification Report), and Memorandum to The File Through Dana 
Mermelstein From Elfi Blum: Verification of research and development 
expenses at the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) (July 11, 2005) 
(CEA Verification Report). Public versions of both reports are on file 
in the Import Administration Central Records Unit (CRU), in room B-099 
of the Department of Commerce.

Analysis of Comments Received

    The issues raised in all case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration (Decision Memorandum), which is 
hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the 
Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum 
is on file in the CRU, and can be accessed directly on the Web at 
http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the 
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made 
adjustments to the methodology used in calculating the final dumping 
margin. The adjustments are discussed in detail in the Decision 
Memorandum.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following 
weighted-average margin exists for the period of February 1, 2003, 
through January 31, 2004:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eurodif/COGEMA.............................................        12.62
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated 
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. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will 
instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by 
that importer. The Department will not issue liquidation instructions 
for any entries of Eurodif merchandise until such time as the July 1, 
2002, injunction issued by the Court of International Trade, is lifted.

Cash Deposits

    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of LEU from France entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date of these final 
results, as provided by section 751(a) of the Act: (1) For companies 
covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed 
above; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not 
covered in this review but covered in a previous segment of this 
proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published in the most recent final results in which that 
producer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, 
but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for 
the producer of the merchandise in these final results of review or in 
the most recent final results in which that producer participated; and 
(4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this 
review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit 
rate will be 19.95 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the 
less-than-fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall 
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Reimbursement

    This notice also serves as a final 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 entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.

Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to the 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 
written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 6, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I--Issues in Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Goods Versus Services
Comment 2: Eurodif's Cost of Purchases of Electricity From the 
Affiliated Supplier
Comment 3: Established Market Price for Electricity
Comment 4: Excluded Costs in EdF's Cost of Production
Comment 5: Cogema's R&D Expenses
Comment 6: CEA's R&D for Centrifuge Enrichment Technology
Comment 7: Use of USEC's Financial Statements
Comment 8: Goodwill Expenses in Constructed Value (CV) Profit
Comment 9: Inter-Company Sales as Part of Sales Revenues in CV 
Profit
Comment 10: Offset to COGEMA's Interest Expense for Income on Short-
Term Investment
Comment 11: Date of Sale for Certain Deliveries
Comment 12: Cost of Uranium in the Calculation of CEP and CV
Comment 13: Indirect Selling Expense Rate
Comment 14: Attribution of Indirect Selling Expenses
Comment 15: Ministerial Error in the CV Calculation for G&A, 
Interest Rate, and CV Profit

[FR Doc. E5-5019 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P