[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 177 (Thursday, September 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52345-52349]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-18071]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-858]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Glycine From the Republic of Korea

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

DATES: Effective Date: September 13, 2007.
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that imports of glycine from the 
Republic of Korea are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United 
States at less than fair value, as provided in section 733 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Interested parties are invited to 
comment on this preliminary determination. We will make our final 
determination within 75 days after the date of this preliminary 
determination.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov or Richard 
Rimlinger, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0665 and (202) 482-4477, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 26, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register the initiation of an antidumping 
investigation on glycine from the Republic of Korea. See Glycine from 
India, Japan, and the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations, 72 FR 20816 (April 26, 2007) (Initiation Notice). The 
Department set aside a period for all interested parties to raise 
issues regarding product coverage. See Initiation Notice. We did not 
receive comments regarding product coverage from any interested party.
    On May 21, 2007, we selected Korea Bio-Gen Co., Ltd. (Korea Bio-
Gen) as the mandatory respondent in this investigation. See the 
Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled ``Antidumping Duty Investigation 
Glycine from the Republic of Korea--Respondent Selection,'' dated May 
21, 2007.
    On May 25, 2007, the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued 
its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable 
indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured 
by reason of imports of glycine from the Republic of Korea.

[[Page 52346]]

See Glycine from India, Japan, and Korea, 72 FR 29352 (May 25, 2007).

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation is January 1, 2006, through December 
31, 2006.

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is glycine, which in 
its solid (i.e., crystallized) form is a free-flowing crystalline 
material. Glycine is used as a sweetener/taste enhancer, buffering 
agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical intermediate, metal complexing 
agent, dietary supplement, and is used in certain pharmaceuticals. The 
scope of this investigation covers glycine in any form and purity 
level. Although glycine blended with other materials is not covered by 
the scope of this investigation, glycine to which relatively small 
quantities of other materials have been added is covered by the scope. 
Glycine's chemical composition is 
C2H5NO2 and is normally classified 
under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS).
    The scope of this investigation also covers precursors of dried 
crystalline glycine, including, but not limited to, glycine slurry 
(i.e., glycine in a non-crystallized form) and sodium glycinate. 
Glycine slurry is classified under the same HTSUS subheading as 
crystallized glycine (2922.49.4020) and sodium glycinate is classified 
under subheading HTSUS 2922.49.8000.
    While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is 
dispositive.

Issuance of Questionnaire

    On June 21, 2007, we issued Sections A, B, C, D, and E \1\ of the 
antidumping questionnaire to Korea Bio-Gen. We did not receive a 
response from Korea Bio-Gen by the close of business on July 16, 2007, 
the established deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section A of the antidumping duty questionnaire requests 
general information concerning a company's corporate structure and 
business practices, the merchandise under investigation, and the 
manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. 
Section B requests a complete listing of all of the company's home-
market sales of the foreign like product or, if the home market is 
not viable, of sales of the foreign like product in the most 
appropriate third-country market. Section C requests a complete 
listing of the company's U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Section 
D requests information of the cost of production of the foreign like 
product and the constructed value of the merchandise under 
investigation. Section E requests information on further-
manufacturing activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 19, 2007, we issued a letter to Korea Bio-Gen extending the 
deadline for submission of the antidumping questionnaire response to 
July 26, 2007, thereby affording it additional time to respond. We have 
not received any response to our questionnaire or any other 
communication from Korea Bio-Gen since we issued the questionnaire to 
it.
    In our July 19, 2007, letter to Korea Bio-Gen, we also informed it 
that any submissions that were not filed in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.303 and 304 of our regulations would be deemed untimely filed 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302 and that we may use facts otherwise 
available for Korea Bio-Gen's antidumping margin in this investigation 
pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act).

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the use of 
adverse facts available (AFA) is appropriate for the preliminary 
determination with respect to Korea Bio-Gen.

A. Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information requested by the administering authority, fails 
to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the 
information and in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections 
(c)(1) and (e) of section 782, significantly impedes a proceeding under 
this title, or provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified as provided in 782(i), the administering authority shall use, 
subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that, if the administering authority determines that a 
response to a request for information does not comply with the request, 
the administering authority shall promptly inform the responding party 
and provide an opportunity to remedy the deficient submission. Section 
782(e) of the Act states further that the Department shall not decline 
to consider submitted information if all of the following requirements 
are met: (1) The information is submitted by the established deadline; 
(2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so 
incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the 
applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated 
that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can 
be used without undue difficulties.
    In this case, Korea Bio-Gen did not provide pertinent information 
we requested that is necessary to calculate an antidumping margin for 
the preliminary determination. Specifically, Korea Bio-Gen failed to 
respond to our questionnaire entirely, thereby withholding, among other 
things, home-market and U.S. sales information that is necessary for 
reaching the applicable determination, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) 
of the Act. Thus, in reaching our preliminary determination, pursuant 
to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, we have based the 
dumping margin on facts otherwise available for Korea Bio-Gen.

B. Application of Adverse Inferences for Facts Available

    In applying the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the 
Act provides that, if the administering authority finds that an 
interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of 
its ability to comply with a request for information from the 
administering authority, in reaching the applicable determination under 
this title, the administering authority may use an inference adverse to 
the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain 
Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Line Pipe From Mexico, 69 FR 59892 
(October 6, 2004).
    Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does 
not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it 
had cooperated fully.'' See Statement of Administrative Action 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, 
vol.1 (1994) at 870 (SAA). Further, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith 
on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may 
make an adverse inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 
Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). Although the Department 
provided Korea Bio-Gen with notice informing it of the consequences of 
its failure to respond adequately to the questionnaire in this case, 
pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, Korea Bio-Gen did not respond to 
the questionnaire. This constitutes a failure on the part of Korea Bio-
Gen to cooperate to the best of its ability to comply with a request 
for information by the Department within the meaning of section 776(b) 
of the Act. Because Korea Bio-Gen did not provide the information 
requested, section 782(e) of the Act is not applicable. Based on the 
above, the Department has preliminarily determined that Korea Bio-Gen 
failed to cooperate to the best of its ability and,

[[Page 52347]]

therefore, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an 
adverse inference is warranted. See, e.g., Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Circular Seamless 
Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Japan, 65 FR 42985 (July 12, 2000) 
(the Department applied total AFA where the respondent failed to 
respond to the antidumping questionnaire).

C. Selection and Corroboration of Information Used as Facts Available

    Where the Department applies AFA because a respondent failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a 
request for information, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the 
Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a final 
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information 
placed on the record. See also 19 CFR 351.308(c) and the SAA at 829-
831. It is the Department's practice to use the highest calculated rate 
from the petition in an investigation when a respondent fails to act to 
the best of its ability to provide the necessary information and there 
are no other respondents. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, 69 
FR 77216 (December 27, 2004) (unchanged in Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Purified 
Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, 70 FR 28279 (May 17, 2005)). 
Therefore, because an adverse inference is warranted, we have assigned 
to Korea Bio-Gen the highest margin alleged in the petition, as 
recalculated in the Initiation Notice, of 138.83 percent (see Petition 
for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Glycine from 
India, Japan, and the Republic of Korea filed on March 30, 2007 
(Petition), and April 3, 12, 13, 17, and 18, 2007, supplements to the 
Petition filed on behalf of Geo Specialty Chemicals, Inc. (the 
petitioner)), as recalculated in the April 19, 2007, ``Office of AD/CVD 
Operations Initiation Checklist for the Antidumping Duty Petition on 
Glycine from the Republic of Korea'' (Initiation Checklist) on file in 
Import Administration's Central Records Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230. We included the range of margins we re-calculated 
in the Initiation Checklist in the notice of initiation of this 
investigation. See Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 20819.
    When using facts otherwise available, section 776(c) of the Act 
provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information 
(such as the petition) rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation, it must corroborate, to the extent 
practicable, information from independent sources that are reasonably 
available at its disposal.
    The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means the Department will 
satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative 
value. See SAA at 870. As stated in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (unchanged in Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, 
and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 
and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825, 11843 
(March 13, 1997)), to corroborate secondary information, the Department 
will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance 
of the information used. The Department's regulations state that 
independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for 
example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs 
data, and information obtained from interested parties during the 
particular investigation. See 19 CFR 351.308(d) and the SAA at 870.
    For the purposes of this investigation, to the extent appropriate 
information was available, we reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the 
information in the Petition during our pre-initiation analysis and for 
purposes of this preliminary determination. See Initiation Checklist. 
We examined evidence supporting the calculations in the Petition to 
determine the probative value of the margins alleged in the Petition 
for use as AFA for purposes of this preliminary determination. During 
our pre-initiation analysis, we examined the key elements of the 
export-price and normal-value calculations used in the Petition to 
derive margins. During our pre-initiation analysis, we also examined 
information from various independent sources provided either 
voluntarily in the Petition or, based on our requests, in supplements 
to the Petition, that corroborates key elements of the export-price and 
normal-value calculations used in the Petition to derive estimated 
margins.
    Specifically, the petitioner calculated an export price using the 
U.S. price quote it obtained for food-grade glycine from the Republic 
of Korea for sale to a large customer in the United States during 2006. 
We obtained affidavits from persons who obtained the U.S. price quote. 
See Initiation Checklist at 6-8. The petitioner also calculated a 
second export price using the average monthly Customs Unit Values 
(AUVs) `F.O.B. foreign port,' of glycine imports from the Republic of 
Korea for consumption in the United States, classified under HTSUS 
number 2922.49.4020 for year 2006, gathered from the Bureau of the 
Census IM145 import statistics. The petitioner used information from 
PIERS Global Intelligence Services to demonstrate that most, if not 
all, entries of glycine during 2006 were of the food-grade glycine. 
U.S. official import statistics are sources that we consider reliable. 
See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Superalloy Degassed Chromium from Japan, 70 FR 48538 
(August 18, 2005), and applicable Memorandum to the File from Dmitry 
Vladimirov entitled ``Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Superalloy Degassed Chromium from Japan: Corroboration 
of Total Adverse Facts Available Rate,'' dated August 11, 2005 
(Chromium from Japan) (unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Superalloy Degassed Chromium from Japan, 
70 FR 65886 (November 1, 2005)). We then compared the U.S. price quote 
to the AUVs for 2006 and confirmed that the value of the U.S. price 
quote was consistent with 2006 U.S. import prices. See Initiation 
Checklist at 6-8. Further, we obtained no other information that would 
make us question the reliability of the pricing information provided in 
the Petition.
    The petitioner adjusted export prices for foreign inland freight, 
international freight, U.S. inland freight, distributor mark-up, and 
credit charges. The petitioner used publicly available data, such as 
PIERS Global Intelligence Services, information at http://www.freightcenter.com, data queries from USITC Interactive Tariff and 
Trade DataWeb, etc., to estimate charges for foreign inland freight, 
international freight, and U.S. inland freight. See Initiation 
Checklist at 6-8. These are sources of information that we consider 
reliable. Further, we obtained no other information that would make us

[[Page 52348]]

question the reliability of the adjusted information provided in the 
Petition. In addition, because the petitioner reported that there were 
no credit expenses in the home market, our regulations at 19 CFR 
351.410(c) do not require an adjustment for differences in 
circumstances of sale in the instant case. Therefore, the net U.S. 
prices we re-calculated in the Initiation Checklist did not include an 
adjustment for U.S. credit expenses. As such, it was not necessary to 
corroborate the petitioner's calculation of U.S. credit expenses. The 
petitioner estimated the distributor mark-up based on GEO Specialty 
Chemicals, Inc.'s sales personnel's knowledge of distributor mark-ups 
in the domestic glycine industry. The petitioner provided an affidavit 
from persons attesting to the validity of the distributor mark-up value 
the petitioner used in the calculation of net U.S. price. See 
Initiation Checklist at 6-8.
    Based on our examination of the aforementioned information, we 
consider the petitioner's calculation of net U.S. prices corroborated.
    With respect to normal value, the petitioner claimed that, despite 
extensive efforts to determine prices in the Republic of Korea, it was 
not able to obtain usable price information for the year 2006 either 
for sales of glycine in the Republic of Korea or for sales of the 
Korean-origin glycine in third markets. The petitioner provided an 
affidavit from an economic consultant attesting to this fact. See 
Initiation Checklist at 8. We also examined the efforts that were made 
to obtain pricing information of the Korean-origin glycine. See 
Memorandum to the File entitled ``Telephone Call to Market Research 
Firm Regarding the Antidumping Petition on Glycine from Korea,'' dated 
April 19, 2007. Consequently, the petitioner based normal value for the 
Korean sales of a certain grade glycine on constructed value.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, the cost of production 
consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM), selling, general and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, financial expenses, and packing 
expenses. As we stated in the Initiation Notice, to calculate the COM, 
the petitioner multiplied the usage quantity of each input needed to 
produce one metric ton of glycine by the value of that input. The 
petitioner obtained all of the quantity and value data it used to 
calculate the COM from public sources. Specifically, the petitioner 
obtained the input-usage factors from the public record of the 1997-
1998 administrative review of antidumping duty order on glycine from 
the People's Republic of China. See Initiation Notice, 72 FR 20819. The 
producer in the 1997-1998 review produced glycine by the same 
production method utilized by producers in the Republic of Korea. In 
exhibit O of its April 13, 2007, supplement to the Petition, the 
petitioner provided a declaration from a chemist and a director of 
technology at Specialty Chemicals, Inc., who acknowledged that, once 
the particular production process is chosen, the consumption quantities 
of inputs are dictated by the particular steps and chemistry of the 
process. As such, the petitioner claimed, the input-consumption factors 
it had used in its cost-of-production/constructed-value build-up that 
were reported by a Chinese glycine producer in the 1997-1998 
administrative review are equally valid as a basis for estimating the 
inputs needed during the current period of investigation and, thus, for 
developing an accurate cost of producing glycine. See April 13, 2007, 
supplement to the Petition at page 2 and exhibit O.
    The petitioner obtained the values for the inputs from various 
public sources. Specifically, the petitioner valued raw materials using 
import statistics in the World Trade Data Atlas for the year 2006, 
exclusive of imports from non-market and heavily subsidized economies, 
which is the latest Korean import data available. See Initiation 
Checklist at 8-9. The petitioner valued labor costs using year 2004 
average per-hour wages for the Republic of Korea using the 
International Labour Organization's Yearbook of Labour Statistics and 
per-capita gross national income obtained from the World Bank. The 
petitioner did not adjust labor data for wage inflation. See Initiation 
Checklist at 8. The petitioner valued electricity and water consumption 
using data from page 43 of the Key World Energy Statistics 2003, 
published by the International Energy Agency. The petitioner did not 
adjust electricity data for inflation. See Initiation Checklist at 8-9. 
The petitioner calculated average factory overhead, SG&A, and the 
financial-expense ratios based on current audited financial statements 
of a publically traded Korean producer of lysine and threonine which 
are amino acids similar to glycine. See Initiation Checklist at 10-12. 
Because the petitioner used constructed value to determine normal 
value, it added an amount for profit calculated using the same 
financial statements. See Initiation Checklist at 10-12. The petitioner 
did not report a home-market interest rate or a home-market credit 
expense. Thus, we did not make an adjustment to normal value for home-
market credit expenses.
    Because the petitioner had demonstrated, and we confirmed, the 
validity of the input-usage quantities it used in its cost-of-
production/constructed-value build-up, used public sources of 
information, such as official import statistics that we confirmed were 
accurate to value inputs of production, and used audited current 
financial statements of a publicly traded Korean producer of amino 
acids similar to glycine to compute factory overhead, SG&A, financial 
expense, and profit that we confirmed were accurate, we consider the 
petitioner's calculation of normal value, based on constructed value, 
corroborated. Further, we consider the petitioner's calculation of 
normal value corroborated because the bulk of the calculations relied 
on publicly available information or import statistics which do not 
require further corroboration. See, e.g., Chromium from Japan. 
Therefore, because we confirmed the accuracy and validity of the 
information underlying the derivation of margins in the Petition by 
examining source documents as well as publically available information, 
we preliminarily determine that the margins in the Petition are 
reliable for the purposes of this investigation.
    In making a determination as to the relevance aspect of 
corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at 
its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a 
margin not relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected 
margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department 
will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For 
example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the 
Department disregarded the highest margin as ``best information 
available'' (the predecessor to ``facts available'') because the margin 
was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense that 
resulted in an unusually high dumping margin.
    In Am. Silicon Techs. v. United States, 273 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1346 
(CIT 2003), the court found that the adverse facts-available rate bore 
a ``rational relationship'' to the respondent's ``commercial 
practices,'' and was, therefore, relevant. In the pre-initiation stage 
of this investigation, we confirmed that the calculation of margins in 
the Petition reflects commercial practices of the particular industry 
during the period of investigation. Further, no information has been 
presented in the

[[Page 52349]]

investigation that calls into question the relevance of this 
information. As such, we preliminarily determine that the highest 
margin in the Petition, which we determined during our pre-initiation 
analysis was based on adequate and accurate information and which we 
have corroborated for purposes of this preliminary determination, is 
relevant as the adverse facts-available rate for Korea Bio-Gen in this 
investigation.
    Similar to our position in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 
Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 71 FR 53405 (September 11, 2006) (unchanged in Polyethylene 
Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 1982 (January 17, 2007)), because this is 
the first proceeding involving Korea Bio-Gen, there are no probative 
alternatives. Accordingly, by using information that was corroborated 
in the pre-initiation stage of this investigation and preliminarily 
determined to be relevant to Korea Bio-Gen in this investigation, we 
have corroborated the adverse facts-available rate ``to the extent 
practicable.'' See section 776(c) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.308(d), and 
NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1336 (CIT 2004) 
(stating, ``pursuant to the `to the extent practicable' language * * * 
the corroboration requirement itself is not mandatory when not 
feasible''). Therefore, we find that the estimated margin of 138.83 
percent in the Initiation Notice has probative value. Consequently, in 
selecting AFA with respect to Korea Bio-Gen, we have applied the margin 
rate of 138.83 percent, the highest estimated dumping margin set forth 
in the notice of initiation. See Initiation Notice.

All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where the estimated 
weighted-averaged dumping margins established for all exporters and 
producers individually investigated are zero or de minimis or are 
determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, the Department may 
use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate 
for exporters and producers not individually investigated. Our recent 
practice under these circumstances has been to assign, as the all-
others rate, the simple average of the margins in the petition. See 
Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From 
Argentina, Japan and Thailand, 65 FR 5520, 5527-28 (February 4, 2000); 
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coil from Canada, 64 FR 15457 (March 
31, 1999), and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coil from Italy, 64 FR 15458, 15459 
(March 31, 1999). Consistent with our practice we calculated a simple 
average of the rates in the Petition, as recalculated in the Initiation 
Checklist at Attachment VI and as listed in the Initiation Notice, and 
assigned this rate to all other manufacturers/exporters. For details of 
these calculations, see the memorandum from Dmitry Vladimirov to File 
entitled ``Antidumping Duty Investigation on Glycine from the Republic 
of Korea--Analysis Memo for All-Others Rate,'' dated September 6, 2007.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of glycine from the Republic of Korea that are entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct 
CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the 
margins, as indicated in the chart below. These suspension-of-
liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. 
The dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                   Manufacturer or exporter                    (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Korea Bio-Gen Co., Ltd.......................................     138.83
All Others...................................................     138.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value. 
If our final antidumping determination is affirmative, the ITC will 
determine whether the imports covered by that determination are 
materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the U.S. 
industry. The deadline for the Commission's determination would be the 
later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 
45 days after the date of our final determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than 
30 days after the publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs must be 
filed within five days after the deadline for submission of case 
briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an 
executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to 
the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages 
total, including footnotes.
    Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a 
hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 
hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing 
is made in an investigation, the hearing normally will be held two days 
after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, 
date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of 
participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. We will 
make our final determination within 75 days after the date of this 
preliminary determination.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 6, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
 [FR Doc. E7-18071 Filed 9-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P