[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5782-5787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2276]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-122-853]


Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Canada: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a timely request by one manufacturer/exporter, 
Jungbunzlauer Canada Inc. (JBL Canada), the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is conducting the first administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on citric acid and certain citrate salts (citric 
acid) from Canada with respect to JBL Canada. The review covers the 
period November 20, 2008, through May 19, 2009, and May 29, 2009, 
through April 30, 2010. We preliminarily determine that JBL Canada made 
sales below normal value (NV).
    If the preliminary results are adopted in our final results of the 
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Trainor or Kate Johnson, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4007 or (202) 482-4929, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In response to a timely request by JBL Canada, on June 30, 2010, 
the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation 
of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on citric 
acid from Canada with respect to JBL Canada covering the period 
November 20, 2008, through May 19, 2009, and May 29, 2009, through 
April 30, 2010. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 37759 
(June 30, 2010).
    Also on June 30, 2010, we issued the antidumping duty questionnaire 
to JBL Canada. In August 2010, we received responses to sections A 
(i.e., the section covering general information about the company), B 
(i.e., the section covering comparison-market sales), C (i.e., the 
section covering U.S. sales), and D (the

[[Page 5783]]

section covering cost of production (COP) and constructed value (CV)) 
of the antidumping duty questionnaire from JBL Canada.
    During the period October through December 2010, we issued to JBL 
Canada supplemental questionnaires regarding sections A, B, C, and D of 
the original questionnaire. We received responses to these 
questionnaires during the period October 2010 through January 2011.

Scope of the Order

    The scope of this order includes all grades and granulation sizes 
of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate in their 
unblended forms, whether dry or in solution, and regardless of 
packaging type. The scope also includes blends of citric acid, sodium 
citrate, and potassium citrate; as well as blends with other 
ingredients, such as sugar, where the unblended form(s) of citric acid, 
sodium citrate, and potassium citrate constitute 40 percent or more, by 
weight, of the blend. The scope of this order also includes all forms 
of crude calcium citrate, including dicalcium citrate monohydrate, and 
tricalcium citrate tetrahydrate, which are intermediate products in the 
production of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate. The 
scope of this order does not include calcium citrate that satisfies the 
standards set forth in the United States Pharmacopeia and has been 
mixed with a functional excipient, such as dextrose or starch, where 
the excipient constitutes at least 2 percent, by weight, of the 
product. The scope of this order includes the hydrous and anhydrous 
forms of citric acid, the dihydrate and anhydrous forms of sodium 
citrate, otherwise known as citric acid sodium salt, and the 
monohydrate and monopotassium forms of potassium citrate. Sodium 
citrate also includes both trisodium citrate and monosodium citrate, 
which are also known as citric acid trisodium salt and citric acid 
monosodium salt, respectively. Citric acid and sodium citrate are 
classifiable under 2918.14.0000 and 2918.15.1000 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), respectively. Potassium 
citrate and crude calcium citrate are classifiable under 2918.15.5000 
and 3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS, respectively. Blends that include citric 
acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate are classifiable under 
3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) is November 20, 2008, through May 19, 
2009, and May 29, 2009, through April 30, 2010. In accordance with 
section 733(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 
subsequent to the imposition of the antidumping duty order, we 
instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to 
liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, entries of subject 
merchandise for the period May 20, 2009, through May 28, 2009. 
Accordingly, this administrative review does not include the period May 
20, 2009, through May 28, 2009.

Facts Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply 
``facts otherwise available'' if necessary information is not available 
on the record or an interested party: (1) Withholds information that 
has been requested by the Department; (2) fails to provide such 
information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner 
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of 
section 782 of the Act; (3) significantly impedes a proceeding; or (4) 
provides such information, but the information cannot be verified.
    The Department's original and first supplemental antidumping 
questionnaires instructed JBL Canada to report its prices and expenses 
in the currencies in which they were incurred, in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.415(a).\1\ Despite our 
instructions, JBL Canada reported its home market price and expense 
data in Canadian dollars (CAD) and its U.S. market price and expense 
data in U.S. dollars (USD), regardless of the currencies in which they 
were incurred. JBL Canada explained that its data processing system 
automatically converts all foreign currency transactions into the 
currency of the respective JBL Group entity at the moment of posting. 
Although the system maintains a record of the original currency in 
which the price or expense was incurred and the exchange rate used to 
make currency conversions, JBL Canada failed to report certain prices 
and expenses in their original currencies, maintaining that retrieving 
the original currency values from the system would be ``an extremely 
laborious and time-consuming undertaking.'' See JBL Canada's October 
29, 2010, supplemental questionnaire response at pages 7-8. Therefore, 
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, we find that JBL Canada 
failed to provide information in the form and manner requested by the 
Department and that it is appropriate to resort to facts otherwise 
available to account for the unreported information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We also referred JBL Canada to the Department's adverse 
facts available (AFA) determination on this same issue in the less-
than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation. See Comment 4 of the Issues 
and Decision Memorandum (LTFV I&D Memo) accompanying the Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Citric Acid 
and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada, 74 FR 16843 (April 13, 2009) 
(Citric Acid LTFV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 
776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference 
if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information. The legislative history of the Act also provides guidance 
by explaining that 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 (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-465 at 870 (1995). Information used to make an 
adverse inference may include such sources as the petition, other 
information placed on the record, or determinations in a prior 
proceeding regarding the subject merchandise. Id. and 19 CFR 
351.308(c). Furthermore, ``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); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United 
States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon).
    Based on JBL Canada's questionnaire response description of how 
exchange rate information is currently stored in its data processing 
system, we find that it was possible for JBL Canada to report all of 
its sales data in the currencies in which they were incurred. This is 
consistent with our determination in Citric Acid LTFV with respect to 
the same issue.\2\ Because JBL Canada could have reported the 
information at issue in the form and manner requested by the 
Department, but failed to do so, we find that JBL Canada has failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability with our requests for information 
in the original and supplemental questionnaires. Specifically, we find 
that an adverse inference is appropriate because: (1) JBL Canada had 
the necessary information within its control

[[Page 5784]]

and it did not report this information; and 2) it failed to put forth 
its maximum effort to provide the requested information. See, e.g., 
Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1883; and Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, Rescission of Administrative Review in 
Part, and Final Determination to Not Revoke Order in Part: Canned 
Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 68 FR 65247 (November 19, 2003), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 20b. Thus, for 
these preliminary results, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we 
find that it is appropriate to apply AFA to the following home market 
variables which JBL Canada converted to CAD from the original currency: 
Gross unit price, billing adjustments, inland insurance, and indirect 
selling expenses. Likewise, we applied AFA to the following U.S. market 
variables which JBL Canada converted to USD from the original currency: 
Foreign inland freight (warehouse to port), foreign inland insurance, 
U.S. inland freight (port to warehouse and warehouse to customer), 
indirect selling expenses, inventory carrying costs, and packing. 
Specifically, as AFA, we increased JBL Canada's reported home market 
sales prices as well as the above-specified U.S. and home market 
expenses by the highest difference between the Department's weighted-
average monthly exchange rates (used to convert comparison-market 
values to USD in the margin program), and JBL Canada's monthly exchange 
rates (used by JBL Canada's data processing system for currency 
conversion purposes). For further explanation, see Memorandum to the 
File entitled ``2008-2010 Administrative Review of Citric Acid and 
Certain Citrate Salts from Canada,'' dated concurrently with this 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Comment 4 of the LTFV I&D Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether JBL Canada's sales of citric acid from Canada 
to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the 
constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the 
``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, for JBL Canada we 
compared the CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-
average NV of the foreign like product where there were sales made in 
the ordinary course of trade. See discussion below.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by JBL Canada covered by the description in the 
``Scope of the Order'' section, above, to be foreign like products for 
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we compared JBL Canada's U.S. sales 
of citric acid to its sales of citric acid made in the home market. 
Where there were no contemporaneous sales within the definition of 19 
CFR 351.414(e)(2)(i), pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2)(ii) and (iii), 
we compared sales within the contemporaneous window period, which 
extends from three months prior to the month of the U.S. sale until two 
months after the sale.
    In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products 
based on the physical characteristics reported by JBL Canada in the 
following order: type, form, grade, and particle size.

Constructed Export Price

    For all U.S. sales made by JBL Canada, we calculated CEP in 
accordance with section 772(b) of the Act because the subject 
merchandise was first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States 
before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the 
producer or exporter, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or 
exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter.
    We based CEP on packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we 
adjusted the starting prices for billing adjustments, rebates and 
interest revenue, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We made 
deductions for movement expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, 
foreign inland freight expenses, foreign inland insurance expenses, 
U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. inland freight expenses, 
U.S. warehousing expenses, and U.S. inland insurance expenses. In 
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we 
deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities 
occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses 
(e.g., imputed credit expenses), and indirect selling expenses 
(including inventory carrying costs).
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using 
the expenses incurred by JBL Canada on its sales of the subject 
merchandise in the United States and the profit associated with those 
sales.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability and Selection of Comparison Market

    To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the 
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared 
the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the 
volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based on this comparison, we 
determined that, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.404(b) JBL Canada had a viable 
home market during the POR. Consequently, pursuant to section 
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.404(c)(i), we based NV on 
home market sales.

B. Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales of foreign 
like products at the same level of trade (LOT) as the export price or 
CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different 
marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). 
Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not 
sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the 
stages of marketing. See Id.; see also Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
From South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997) (Plate from 
South Africa). In order to determine whether the comparison-market 
sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. 
sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e., the 
chain of distribution), including selling functions, class of customer 
(customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of 
sale.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs 
for EP and comparison-market sales (i.e., where NV is based on either 
home market or third country prices),\3\ we consider the starting 
prices before any adjustments. 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. See Micron 
Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 
2001). When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign 
like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, 
the

[[Page 5785]]

Department may compare the U.S. sales to sales at a different LOT in 
the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT 
in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we 
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 
for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of 
distribution than the LOT of the CEP and there is no basis for 
determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects 
price comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment was practicable), the 
Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732-
33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on 
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, general 
and administrative (G&A) expenses, and profit for CV, where 
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this administrative review, we obtained information from JBL 
Canada regarding the marketing stages involved in making its reported 
home market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling 
activities performed by the respondent and its affiliates for each 
channel of distribution.
    During the POR, JBL Canada reported that it sold citric acid to 
end-users and distributors through two channels of distribution in both 
the U.S. and home markets. JBL Canada stated that its selling process 
was essentially the same for all channels of distribution. Because the 
details of JBL Canada's reported selling functions for each channel of 
distribution are business proprietary, our analysis of these selling 
functions for purposes of determining whether different LOTs exist is 
contained in a separate memorandum to James Maeder, Director, AD/CVD 
Operations Office 2, from the Team entitled ``Preliminary Level-of-
Trade Analysis,'' dated contemporaneously with this notice.
    Based on our analysis, we find that the selling functions JBL 
Canada performed for each of its channels of distribution in the U.S. 
market were essentially the same, with the exception of one selling 
function which we determined was not sufficient to warrant an LOT 
distinction between these channels. Therefore, we determined 
preliminarily that there is only one LOT (for CEP sales) in the U.S. 
market. Similarly, we found that the selling functions that JBL Canada 
(and its affiliates) performed for each of the channels of distribution 
in the home market were essentially the same, with the exception of 
certain selling activities which we determined were not sufficient to 
warrant an LOT distinction between these channels. Therefore, we 
preliminarily determine that there is only one LOT in the home market.
    In comparing the home market LOT to the CEP LOT, we found that the 
selling activities performed by JBL Canada (and its affiliates) for its 
CEP sales were significantly fewer than the selling activities that it 
performed for its home market sales, and that the home-market LOT was 
more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT. Accordingly, we 
considered the CEP LOT to be different from the home-market LOT and to 
be at a less advanced stage of distribution than the home-market LOT.
    Therefore, we could not match CEP sales to sales at the same LOT in 
the home market, nor could we determine an LOT adjustment based on JBL 
Canada's home market sales because there is only one LOT in the home 
market, and it is not possible to determine if there is a pattern of 
consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and 
home market sales at the LOT of the export transaction. See section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Furthermore, we have no other information that 
provides an appropriate basis for determining an LOT adjustment. 
Consequently, because the available data do not form an appropriate 
basis for making an LOT adjustment but the home market LOT is at a more 
advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT, we find it is 
appropriate to make a CEP offset to NV in accordance with section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP offset is calculated as the lesser of: 
(1) The indirect selling expenses incurred on the home market sales, or 
(2) the indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting price in 
calculating CEP.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    Whenever the Department has reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for 
the determination of NV have been made at prices which represent less 
than the COP, the Department shall determine whether, in fact, such 
sales were made at less than COP. See section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We 
found that JBL Canada made home market sales below the COP in the LTFV 
investigation and such sales were disregarded. See Citric Acid and 
Certain Citrate Salts from Canada: Notice of Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 
Determination, 73 FR 70324 (November 20, 2008); unchanged in Citric 
Acid LTFV. Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
Act, we find that there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 
that JBL Canada made sales in its home market at prices below the cost 
of producing the merchandise in the current review period.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of the cost of materials and conversion for the 
foreign like product, plus an amount for G&A expenses and interest 
expenses (see ``Test of Comparison-Market Sales Prices'' section below 
for treatment of comparison-market selling expenses and packing costs).
    The Department relied on the COP data submitted by JBL Canada in 
the November 8, 2010, supplemental response to section D of the 
questionnaire for the COP calculations. We made an adjustment to the 
reported depreciation expenses associated with an affiliated party 
transaction. For adjustment details, see the Memorandum to Neal M. 
Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, ``Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--
Jungbunzlauer Canada, Inc,'' dated concurrently with this notice.
    Based on the review of record evidence, JBL Canada did not appear 
to experience significant changes in cost of manufacturing during the 
POR. Therefore, we followed our normal methodology of calculating a 
POR-wide weighted-average cost.
2. Test of Comparison-Market Sales Prices
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the weighted-average COP 
to the prices of home market sales of the foreign like product, as 
required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether 
the sale prices were below the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we 
used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The prices, 
adjusted for any applicable billing adjustments, rebates, and interest 
revenue, were also exclusive of any applicable movement charges, direct 
and indirect selling expenses,\4\ and packing expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We recalculated home market credit expenses in order to 
account for the application of AFA to home market prices used in the 
credit expense calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Results of the COP Test
    After concluding that we had reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that JBL Canada's sales of foreign like product were made at 
prices less than COP, to determine whether to disregard such sales, we 
examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act: 
(1) Whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in 
substantial quantities; and (2) whether

[[Page 5786]]

such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. 
Where less than 20 percent of a respondent's comparison-market sales of 
a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard 
any below-cost sales of that product because we determine that, in such 
instances, the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period 
of time in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, 
we disregard the below-cost sales because: (1) They were made within an 
extended period of time in ``substantial quantities,'' in accordance 
with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) based on our 
comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they 
were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within 
a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act.
    Based on this test, we did not disregard any of JBL Canada's home 
market sales of citric acid because for all products, we found that 
less than 20 percent of these sales were at prices less than the COP.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices

    We based NV for JBL Canada on packed, ex-factory or delivered 
prices to unaffiliated customers in the home market. Where appropriate, 
we adjusted the starting prices for billing adjustments, rebates and 
interest revenue, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We made 
deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for movement 
expenses, including inland freight and inland insurance, under section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
    We made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act for 
differences in circumstances-of-sale for imputed credit expenses, where 
appropriate.
    We also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
    Finally, as discussed in the ``Level of Trade'' section above, we 
made a CEP offset pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.412(f). We calculated the CEP offset as the lesser of the 
indirect selling expenses incurred on the home-market sales or the 
indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting price in 
calculating CEP.

Currency Conversion

    It is our normal practice to make currency conversions into U.S. 
dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified 
by the Federal Reserve Bank. See ``Facts Available'' section, above, 
for further discussion of currency conversion in this administrative 
review.
Preliminary Results of the Review
    We preliminarily determine that a weighted-average dumping margin 
exists for JBL Canada for the period November 20, 2008, through May 19, 
2009, and May 29, 2009, through April 30, 2010, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Percent
                   Manufacturer/exporter                        margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jungbunzlauer Canada Inc...................................         1.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Hearing

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit case briefs not later 
than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not 
later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. Parties who 
submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged 
to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief 
summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate 
if one is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, Room 1870, within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The 
party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of 
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those 
raised in the respective case briefs.
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication 
of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department intends to 
issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject 
to this review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of 
the final results of this review.
    Because the respondent did not report entered value for all sales 
to each importer or customer, we will calculate importer- or customer-
specific per-unit duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount 
of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing 
this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether 
the duty assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the 
requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will calculate 
importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered 
value.
    We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific 
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above 
de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to 
antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de 
minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The final results of this 
review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on 
entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and 
for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 
Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these 
final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know 
that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 
trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In 
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at 
the all-others rate effective during the POR if there is no rate for 
the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy 
Notice for a full discussion of this clarification.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided

[[Page 5787]]

by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the 
company listed above will be that established in the final results of 
this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, 
therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in 
which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) 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; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, a previous review, or the original 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 (4) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 23.21 percent, the all-
others rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. See Citric Acid 
and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and the People's Republic of 
China: Antidumping Duty Orders, 74 FR 25703 (May 29, 2009). These 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

Notification to Importers

    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 Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.

    Dated: January 26, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-2276 Filed 2-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P