[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68038-68041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30434]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-838]


Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from an interested party, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on carbazole violet pigment 23 
from India. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Alpanil 
Industries. The period of review is December 1, 2007, through November 
30, 2008. We have preliminarily determined that Alpanil Industries made 
sales below normal value. We invite interested parties to comment on 
these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 22, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerrold Freeman or Yang Jin Chun, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0180 and (202) 482-5760, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 29, 2004, we published in the Federal Register the 
antidumping duty order on carbazole violet pigment 23 (CVP 23) from 
India. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From 
India, 69 FR 77988 (December 29, 2004). On December 1, 2008, we 
published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CVP 23 from 
India. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 
73 FR 72764 (December 1, 2008). On December 30, 2008, pursuant to 
section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 
CFR 351.213(b), Alpanil Industries (Alpanil) requested an 
administrative review of the order. On February 2, 2009, in accordance 
with section 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we 
published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the order. 
See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 5821 (February 2, 
2009).
    On September 3, 2009, we extended the due date for the completion 
of the preliminary results of review from September 2, 2009, to 
November 16, 2009. See Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India: 
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping

[[Page 68039]]

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 45610 (September 3, 2009). On 
November 20, 2009, we extended the due date for the completion of the 
preliminary results of review from November 16, 2009, to December 15, 
2009. See Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India: Extension of Time 
Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 74 FR 60237 (November 20, 2009).
    The administrative review of the order on CVP 23 from India for 
Alpanil covers the period December 1, 2007, through November 30, 2008.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is CVP 23 identified as Color 
Index No. 51319 and Chemical Abstract No. 6358-30-1, with the chemical 
name of diindolo [3,2-b:3[acute],2[acute]-m]\1\ triphenodioxazine, 
8,18-dichloro-5, 15-diethyl-5, 15-dihydro-, and molecular formula of 
C34H22Cl2N4O2. The subject merchandise includes the crude pigment in 
any form (e.g., dry powder, paste, wet cake) and finished pigment in 
the form of presscake and dry color. Pigment dispersions in any form 
(e.g., pigment dispersed in oleoresins, flammable solvents, water) are 
not included within the scope of the order. The merchandise subject to 
the order is classifiable under subheading 3204.17.90.40 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the 
HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The bracketed section of the product description, [3,2-
b:3[acute],2[acute]-m], is not business-proprietary information. In 
this case, the brackets are simply part of the chemical 
nomenclature. See Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 74141 
(December 5, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Status of Entry

    Alpanil submitted data which indicated that the sole U.S. sales 
transaction entered the United States as a type 1 entry (not subject to 
an antidumping (AD) and/or countervailing duty (CVD) order) on October 
29, 2008, and that this entry was liquidated on October 9, 2009. 
Because there was no evidence of any unliquidated entries on the 
record, there was a question of whether we should rescind the 
administrative review due to a lack of reviewable entries.
    On November 3, 2009, we informed Alpanil that the sole U.S. sales 
transaction entered as an entry not subject to AD or CVD duties and 
provided an opportunity for Alpanil to provide evidence that there was 
an unliquidated entry of subject merchandise into the United States 
during the period of review. In response to our request, Alpanil 
indicated that the importer filed the entry erroneously as a type 1 
entry (not subject to an AD and/or CVD order), it has since protested 
the liquidation of the entry, and it has further requested that U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reclassify this entry as a type 3 
entry (subject to an AD and/or CVD order). At this time, we do not know 
whether CBP has taken any action with respect to this entry. We have 
decided to proceed with this administrative review, but we intend to 
rescind the review if we are not satisfied that CBP has changed the 
status of the entry to a type 3 entry by thirty days prior to the 
statutory deadline for completion of the final results of review.

Export Price

    To determine whether sales of CVP 23 from India to the United 
States were made at prices less than normal value, we compared the U.S. 
price to the normal value. For the price of sales by Alpanil to the 
United States, we used export price as defined in section 772(a) of the 
Act because the subject merchandise was first sold to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States. Section 772(a) of the Act defines 
export price as ``the price at which the subject merchandise is first 
sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the 
producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United 
States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an 
unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as 
adjusted under subsection (c).''
    We calculated Alpanil's pexport price based on the price of the 
subject merchandise sold to unaffiliated customers in, or for 
exportation to, the United States. See section 772(c) of the Act. We 
made deductions for movement expenses incurred in India and 
international movement expenses incurred for sales of the subject 
merchandise to the United States in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    Section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act requires the Department to increase 
export price by the amount of the CVD imposed on the subject 
merchandise to offset an export subsidy. The CVD order on CVP 23 from 
India is currently in effect. See Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: 
Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 77995 (December 29, 
2004). In preparing these preliminary results of review, we determined 
that an adjustment is not appropriate in this case because no CVD 
deposit was made at entry and no CVD duties were paid at liquidation. 
In the event we are satisfied that there are suspended entries during 
the period of review, we will determine whether an adjustment to offset 
export subsidies is appropriate. For more details on our decision, see 
the December 15, 2009, Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for Alpanil at 
4.

Comparison-Market Sales

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the comparison market to serve as a viable basis for 
calculating normal value, we compared the volume of home-market sales 
of the foreign like product in India to the volume of the U.S. sales of 
the subject merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the 
Act. Based on this comparison of the aggregate quantities of the home-
market and U.S. sales and absent any information that a particular 
market situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper 
comparison, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product 
sold by Alpanil in the home market was greater than five percent of its 
aggregate volume of the sales of the subject merchandise and therefore 
sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject 
merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Thus, we 
determined that Alpanil's home market was viable as the comparison 
market during the period of review. See section 773(a)(1) of the Act.
    Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, 
we based normal value for the respondent on the prices at which the 
foreign like product was first sold for consumption in India in the 
usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to 
the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the comparison-
market sales. See the ``Level of Trade'' section below for more 
details.

Model-Matching Methodology

    We compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in 
the home market. Specifically, in making our comparisons, we attempted 
to make comparisons to weighted-average monthly home-market prices that 
were based on all sales of the identical product. Because no identical 
match was found, we matched similar merchandise on the basis of the 
comparison product which was closest in terms of the physical 
characteristics to the product sold in the United States. These 
characteristics are, in the order of importance, form, stability, 
dispersion, and tone. We made comparisons to weighted-average monthly 
home-market

[[Page 68040]]

prices that were based on all sales of the most similar product to the 
U.S. product. Because we were able to match all U.S. sales to home-
market sales of similar products, we did not need to calculate the 
constructed value of the U.S. product as the basis for normal value.

Normal Value

    We based normal value for Alpanil on the prices of the foreign like 
products sold to its home-market customers. When applicable, we made 
adjustments for differences in packing and movement expenses in 
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. Because we 
calculated normal value using sales of similar merchandise, we also 
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 and 19 CFR 351.411. In addition, we made 
circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market direct 
selling expenses from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, 
normal value.
    Based on our findings at verification, we have changed the short-
term interest rate for calculating Alpanil's home-market credit 
expenses in this review. Due to the business-proprietary nature of our 
calculation methodology, please see the Preliminary Analysis Memorandum 
for Alpanil at 5 for more details.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we determined normal value based on sales in the 
home market at the same level of trade as the export-price sales. The 
normal-value level of trade is based on the starting price of the sales 
in the home market. For export-price sales, the U.S. level of trade is 
based on the starting price of the sales to the U.S. market.
    We examined the differences in selling activities reported in 
Alpanil's responses to our requests for information. Alpanil reported 
two customer categories and one channel of distribution for its home-
market sales. The two customer categories are end-users and 
distributors.
    With respect to its home-market sales, Alpanil reported that it 
incurred expenses for the following selling functions and activities 
for both customer categories: sales forecasting, sales promotion, 
inventory maintenance, order input/processing, direct sales personnel, 
and sales/marketing support. We examined Alpanil's selling activities 
and found them to be similar with respect to sales forecasting, sales 
promotion, inventory maintenance, order input/processing, direct sales 
personnel, and sales/marketing support. Therefore, we find that Alpanil 
has one level of trade in its home market.
    Alpanil reported one channel of distribution for two categories of 
U.S. customers, end-users and trading companies. Alpanil reported that 
the selling activities were identical for all U.S. customer categories. 
With respect to its sole export-price sale, Alpanil reported that it 
incurred expenses for sales forecasting, inventory maintenance, and 
order input/processing. We examined Alpanil's selling activities and 
found them to be similar for both categories of U.S. customers. 
Therefore, we find that sales in the U.S. market were made at one level 
of trade.
    We find that the U.S. level of trade was the same as that of the 
home-market level of trade, given that Alpanil's selling functions 
associated with its home-market level of trade were similar with no 
meaningful differences to those associated with the U.S. market level 
of trade. They were similar with respect to sales forecasting, 
inventory maintenance, order input/processing, and freight and 
delivery. Thus, we were able to match Alpanil's export-price sale to 
sales at the same level of trade in the home market and no level-of-
trade adjustment was necessary.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we have verified 
Alpanil's home-market and U.S. sales information using standard 
verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the 
manufacturer's facilities, the examination of relevant sales and 
financial records, and the selection of original documentation 
containing relevant information. Our verification results are outlined 
in the public version of the verification report dated October 20, 
2009, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the 
main Department of Commerce building.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin on CVP 23 from India for the 
period December 1, 2007, through November 30, 2008, for Alpanil is 
71.74 percent.
    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this review within five days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties who wish to 
request a hearing or to participate in a hearing if a hearing is 
requested must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Requests should contain the following: (1) the party's name, 
address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; (3) a 
list of issues to be discussed.
    Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the 
case briefs. Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not 
later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice of 
preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs from interested parties, 
limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted not 
later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs or 
comments. Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the 
scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Parties who submit 
case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to 
submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a summary of the 
arguments not exceeding five pages, and a table of statutes, 
regulations, and cases cited. The final results of administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, are due not later than 
120 days after the date of publication of this notice.

Assessment Rates

    In the event we are satisfied that there are suspended entries 
during the period of review and we complete the final results of 
review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We 
intend to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 
days after publication of the final results of review. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific 
assessment rate by dividing the total dumping margin for the reviewed 
sale by the total entered value of the reviewed sale.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the period of review produced by Alpanil for which 
it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In 
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at 
the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate 
company(ies)

[[Page 68041]]

involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this 
clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for 
all shipments of CVP 23 from India entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as 
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rate 
for Alpanil will be the rate established in the final results of this 
review; (2) for a previously investigated or reviewed company, the 
cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate; (3) if 
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or a previous 
review, or the less-than-fair-value 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; (4) if neither 
the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash-deposit 
rate will be 27.48 percent, the all-others rate published in the less-
than-fair-value investigation (69 FR at 77989) . These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

Notification to Importer

    This notice also 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 entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and 
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 
Act.

    Dated: December 15, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-30434 Filed 12-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S