[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 88 (Friday, May 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26247-26252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11122]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-821-819]


Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: In response to timely requests, the Department of Commerce 
(the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on magnesium metal from the Russian Federation 
for the period of review (POR) April 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010. 
The review covers two respondents, PSC VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation 
(AVISMA) and Solikamsk Magnesium Works (SMW).

[[Page 26248]]

    The Department preliminarily determines that AVISMA did not make 
sales to the United States at less than normal value. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this 
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to assess no antidumping duties on entries by AVISMA 
during the POR. SMW reported that it had no shipments to the United 
States during the POR. The preliminary results are listed below in the 
section titled ``Preliminary Results of Review.''

DATES: Effective Date: May 6, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hermes Pinilla or Minoo Hatten, 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-
3477 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department published the antidumping duty order on magnesium 
metal from the Russian Federation on April 15, 2005. See Notice of 
Antidumping Duty Order: Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation, 70 
FR 19930 (April 15, 2005). On April 1, 2010, the Department published 
in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an 
administrative review of the order on magnesium metal from the Russian 
Federation. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 
75 FR 16426 (April 1, 2010). On April 30, 2010, U.S. Magnesium 
Corporation LLC, the petitioner in this proceeding, requested that the 
Department conduct an administrative review with respect to AVISMA and 
SMW, both Russian Federation producers of the subject merchandise. On 
May 28, 2010, the Department published a notice of initiation of an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on magnesium metal 
from the Russian Federation for the period April 1, 2009, through March 
31, 2010. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 29976 (May 28, 2010).
    We have extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this 
administrative review from December 31, 2010, to April 30, 2011.\1\ See 
Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Extension of Time Limit 
for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 
FR 78968 (December 17, 2010), and Magnesium Metal From the Russian 
Federation: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 12938 (March 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Because April 30, 2011 falls on a Saturday, it is the 
Department's practice to issue a determination the next business day 
when the statutory deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday, or 
any other day when the Department is closed. See Notice of 
Clarification: Application of ``Next Business Day'' Rule for 
Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). Accordingly, the 
deadline for completion of the preliminary results is May 2, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are conducting this review in accordance with section 751 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of the Order \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On March 10, 2011, the Department revoked the order, 
effective April 15, 2010. See Magnesium Metal From the Russian 
Federation: Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order Pursuant to Five-
Year Sunset Review, 76 FR 13128 (March 10, 2011). This review covers 
merchandise that entered the United States for consumption during 
the POR which met the description of the scope of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The merchandise covered by the order is magnesium metal (also 
referred to as magnesium), which includes primary and secondary pure 
and alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material 
source, form, shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing 
by weight primarily the element magnesium. Primary magnesium is 
produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary 
magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium 
metal. The magnesium covered by the order includes blends of primary 
and secondary magnesium.
    The subject merchandise includes the following pure and alloy 
magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium, 
including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, 
rounds, billets, and other shapes, and magnesium ground, chipped, 
crushed, or machined into raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, 
briquettes, and other shapes: (1) Products that contain at least 99.95 
percent magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as ``ultra-pure'' 
magnesium); (2) products that contain less than 99.95 percent but not 
less than 99.8 percent magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as 
``pure'' magnesium); and (3) chemical combinations of magnesium and 
other material(s) in which the magnesium content is 50 percent or 
greater, but less that 99.8 percent, by weight, whether or not 
conforming to an ``ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy.''
    The scope of the order excludes: (1) Magnesium that is in liquid or 
molten form; and (2) mixtures containing 90 percent or less magnesium 
in granular or powder form by weight and one or more of certain non-
magnesium granular materials to make magnesium-based reagent mixtures, 
including lime, calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, 
calcium carbonate, carbon, slag coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline 
syenite, feldspar, alumina (Al203), calcium aluminate, soda ash, 
hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal, 
cryolite, silica/fly ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys, 
dolomite lime, and colemanite.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This second exclusion for magnesium-based reagent mixtures 
is based on the exclusion for reagent mixtures in the 2001 
investigations of magnesium from the People's Republic of China, 
Israel, and the Russian Federation. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium in 
Granular Form From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 49345 
(September 27, 2001), Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From Israel, 66 FR 49349 (September 
27, 2001), and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less 
Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation, 66 FR 
49347 (September 27, 2001). These mixtures are not magnesium alloys, 
because they are not chemically combined in liquid form and cast 
into the same ingot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable 
under items 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.30.00, and 8104.90.00 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the 
HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description of the merchandise covered by the order is 
dispositive. See id.

SMW

    On June 8, 2010, SMW submitted a letter indicating that it made no 
sales of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 
We have not received any comments on SMW's submission. We examined 
SMW's claim of no shipments by issuing a ``No Shipments Inquiry'' to 
CBP and by reviewing electronic CBP data. See Memorandum to the File 
entitled ``Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation--Request for 
U.S. Entry Documents,'' dated October 27, 2010. Based on our review of 
the electronic CBP data, we found that there were entries of subject 
merchandise produced by SMW to the United States during the POR. On 
November 29, 2010, we requested clarification from SMW on the entries 
we found in the electronic CBP data. On December 8, 2010, SMW filed a 
response indicating that the shipments in question were made by a third 
party which resold the subject

[[Page 26249]]

merchandise produced by SMW to the United States without the specific 
knowledge of SMW. Thus, according to SMW, it had no knowledge of or 
involvement in the importation of magnesium metal into the United 
States during the POR. See SMW's response to the Department's inquiry 
dated December 8, 2010. Based on the information SMW provided on the 
record, we find that SMW did not have knowledge of exports or 
involvement in imports of magnesium metal into the United States during 
the POR. Thus, we did not request SMW to report such sales to the 
Department for purposes of calculating a dumping margin in this 
administrative review.

Affiliated-Party Sales

    Based on information on the record, we preliminarily determined 
that AVISMA is affiliated with one of its home-market customers. See 
memorandum entitled ``Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation: 
Affiliation Analysis'' dated March 30, 2011. As a result, we requested 
that AVISMA respond to our June 7, 2010, questionnaire concerning sales 
of the foreign like product by AVISMA's home-market customer to its 
unaffiliated home-market customers. See the Department's letter to 
AVISMA dated March 31, 2011. On April 14, 2011, we received a response 
from AVISMA indicating that the home-market customer in question 
consumed all of the magnesium metal it purchased from AVISMA during the 
POR. Thus, according to AVISMA, it does not have any downstream sales 
to report to the Department. See AVISMA's response to the Department's 
request for affiliated-party sales dated April 14, 2011. Based on this 
information, we preliminarily find that no further action is required 
with respect to AVISMA's affiliated-party sales regarding the home-
market customer in question. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: 
Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation, 69 FR 59197, 59200 
(October 4, 2004), unchanged in Magnesium Metal from the Russian 
Federation: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 70 FR 9041 (February 24, 2005).

Constructed Export Price

    AVISMA identified all of its sales to the United States as 
constructed export price (CEP) sales because the U.S. sales were made 
on behalf of AVISMA by AVISMA's U.S. affiliate, VSMPO-Tirus, U.S., Inc. 
(Tirus US), to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. AVISMA and 
Tirus US are affiliated because Tirus US is a wholly owned subsidiary 
of AVISMA. See section 771(33)(E) of the Act. U.S. sales to the first 
unaffiliated party were made in the United States by the U.S. 
affiliate, thus satisfying the legal requirements for considering these 
transactions to be CEP sales. See section 772(b) of the Act.
    We calculated CEP based on the packed, C.I.F. price to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) 
of the Act, we made deductions from price for movement expenses and 
discounts, where appropriate. More specifically, we deducted early-
payment discounts, expenses for Russian railway freight from plant to 
port, freight insurance, Russian brokerage, handling and port charges, 
international freight and marine insurance, U.S. customs duties, U.S. 
brokerage, handling, and port charges, U.S. warehousing, and U.S. 
inland freight.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted direct 
selling expenses and indirect selling expenses related to commercial 
activity in the United States. See also Statement of Administrative 
Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 
103-316, Vol. 1 (1994) at 823-824. Pursuant to sections 772(d)(3) and 
772(f) of the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP profit allocated to 
expenses deducted under section 772(d)(1) of the Act. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on the total 
revenues realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets, less all 
expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to 
expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity based on the 
ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and 
home markets. See AVISMA Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum dated 
May 2, 2011 (Preliminary Analysis Memo).

Normal Value

    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of 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 foreign like product sold by AVISMA 
in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison 
with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States under 
section 773(a) of the Act. AVISMA's quantity of sales in its home 
market was greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S. market. 
Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we 
considered basing normal value on the prices at which the foreign like 
product was first sold for consumption in the exporting country 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 CEP sales.
    In accordance with section 771(16)(A) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by AVISMA that are covered by the description in the 
``Scope of the Order'' section, above, and that were sold in the home 
market during the POR to be foreign like products for purposes of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In 
accordance with sections 771(16)(B) and (C) of the Act, where there 
were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to 
U.S. sales, we considered comparing U.S. sales to the most similar 
foreign like product on the basis of the product characteristics we 
determined to be the most appropriate for purposes of matching 
products.

Cost of Production Analysis

    We disregarded below-cost sales in accordance with section 773(b) 
of the Act in the last completed review with respect to AVISMA in which 
it participated as of the date of initiation of this review. See 
Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 52642, 52643 (September 
10, 2008). Therefore, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 
that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the 
determination of normal value in this review may have been made at 
prices below the cost of production (COP) as provided by section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act, we conducted a COP investigation of sales by AVISMA in the 
home market.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product plus amounts for home-market 
selling, general and administrative expenses, interest expense, and 
packing expenses.
    During the POR, AVISMA used two different accounting methodologies 
in its normal books and records to determine the costs of raw 
magnesium. AVISMA treated raw magnesium as a by-product in its normal 
books and records during the period April 1 through December 31, 2009. 
Raw magnesium and chlorine gas are produced jointly during the third 
major processing step, the electrolysis stage (i.e., the split-off 
point), during which

[[Page 26250]]

both products become identifiable physically. AVISMA's calculation of 
the by-product value for raw magnesium started with the total sales 
value of finished goods produced. It reduced this amount by the 
budgeted profit, selling expenses, and post-split-off costs. Because 
AVISMA considers the remaining amount to represent the total net 
realizable value (NRV) of raw magnesium, it used this value as the 
offset for raw magnesium in calculating a total NRV for chlorine gas 
for its response to our questionnaire.
    On January 1, 2010, AVISMA revised its accounting methodology in 
its normal books and records and began to treat chlorine gas as a by-
product of raw magnesium. AVISMA's calculation of the by-product value 
for chlorine gas was based on the budgeted cost of production of 
AVISMA's new gasification plant. AVISMA valued chlorine gas at the 
estimated cost of liquid chlorine plus estimated transportation and 
gasification costs at its new facility. AVISMA then deducted the total 
estimated value of chlorine gas from the total joint costs and assigned 
the remaining joint costs to raw magnesium.
    For reporting purposes in this administrative review, AVISMA 
departed from its normal books and records and relied instead on the 
Department's calculation methodology in Magnesium Metal From the 
Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 26922 (May 13, 2010) (Preliminary Results 
08-09 Review). See also Memorandum entitled ``Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--
PSC VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation and VSMPO--Tirus US Inc.''' dated May 7, 
2010 (Preliminary Results 08-09 Review Cost Memo); the Department 
followed the same methodology in Magnesium Metal From the Russian 
Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 
FR 56989 (September 17, 2010) (Final Results 08-09 Review).
    As such, AVISMA considered chlorine gas and market-quality raw 
magnesium produced jointly at the split-off point as co-products. For 
the purpose of allocating the split-off-point joint costs to the co-
products, AVISMA used the NRV of chlorine gas as calculated by the 
Department in the Final Results 08-09 Review. See Attachment 5 of the 
Preliminary Results 08-09 Review Cost Memo.
    In accordance with section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act, we have 
examined both accounting methodologies employed by AVISMA in its normal 
books and records during the POR. We agree with AVISMA that for 
purposes of this review it is proper to depart from AVISMA's normal 
books and records for the period April 1 through December 31, 2009. See 
Memorandum entitled ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--PSC VMPSO-AVIMSA 
Corporation and VSMPO--Tirus, U.S. Inc.,'' dated May 2, 2011 
(Preliminary Results 09-10 Review Cost Memo). We have accepted AVISMA's 
reported costs for the period April 1 through December 31, 2009, for 
the sake of maintaining consistency with the prior segments of this 
proceeding. In the previous review, we also deviated from AVISMA's 
normal books and records (which considered raw magnesium to be a by-
product of the joint process) and used the same co-product approach in 
allocating joint costs to raw magnesium and chlorine gas as reported by 
AVISMA for the first nine months of the instant POR (April 1 through 
December 31, 2009). See, e.g., Preliminary Results 08-09 Review, 75 FR 
at 26925 (unchanged in Final Results 08-09 Review).
    As explained in the Preliminary Results 09-10 Review Cost Memo, we 
find AVISMA's new methodology to be a reasonable reflection of the 
costs associated with the production of the subject merchandise. 
Therefore, for these preliminary results, we have recalculated AVISMA's 
costs of raw magnesium and chlorine gas for the period January 1 
through March 31, 2010, to reflect AVISMA's normal books and records as 
instructed by section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act.
    We have calculated the weighted-average COP using the costs of the 
final products for the period April 1 through December 31, 2009, and 
the costs of the final products for the period January 1 through March 
31, 2010, in order to determine the weighted-average per-unit costs of 
the merchandise under consideration. See Preliminary Results 09-10 
Review Cost Memo.
    We have not considered the comments filed by the petitioner on 
April 20, 2011, in our analysis of AVISMA's reported costs for these 
preliminary results because of the lack of time between the date of the 
petitioner's filing and the statutory deadline for completion of the 
preliminary results. With less than two weeks between the submission of 
the comments and the fully extended statutory deadline for issuing 
these preliminary results, we could not ensure full participation by 
all parties in the process of determining whether sufficient 
information is on the record to apply the proposed analysis. We will 
consider the petitioner's comments carefully for the final results of 
this review and we invite comments from the parties concerning the 
implications of applying the petitioner's proposed analysis for the 
purposes of this review (e.g., what to use for constructed value in the 
event we must rely on one of the alternative methods described in 
section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act). Such comments should be filed in 
accordance with the schedule for filing case briefs as discussed in the 
``Disclosure and Public Comment'' section below.
    We also revised AVISMA's reported net interest expense ratio to 
exclude that portion of the reported interest income offset related to 
loans receivable. AVISMA's auditor could not determine that the 
carrying value of AVISMA's loans receivable was reasonable. As such, we 
cannot determine whether the interest income calculated by AVISMA based 
on the value of the loans receivable is a reasonable reflection of the 
actual interest received. Therefore, we have disallowed the offset for 
this interest income because we cannot conclude that the value of the 
reported interest income offset related to loans receivable is 
reasonable. See id.
    After calculating the COP and in accordance with section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act, we tested whether home market sales of the foreign like 
product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of 
time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared 
model-specific COPs to the reported home market prices less any 
applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates. Pursuant to 
section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 percent of a 
respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, 
we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because the 
below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an 
extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of a respondent's 
sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we disregard 
the below-cost sales because they were made in substantial quantities 
within an extended period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and 
(C) of the Act and because, based on comparisons of prices to weighted-
average COPs for the POR, such sales were at prices which would not 
permit 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

[[Page 26251]]

disregarded certain home market sales of magnesium metal because such 
sales did not pass the cost test. See Preliminary Analysis Memo.

Level of Trade

    In the U.S. market, AVISMA made CEP sales. In the case of CEP 
sales, we identified the level of trade based on the price after the 
deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. 
Although the starting price for CEP sales was based on sales made by 
the affiliated reseller to unaffiliated customers through two channels 
of distribution, sales to end-users and distributors, AVISMA reported 
similar selling activities associated with all sales to the affiliated 
reseller (i.e., at the CEP level of trade).
    AVISMA reported one channel of distribution in the home market, 
sales to end-users. We found that this channel of distribution 
constitutes a single level of trade in the home market. To determine 
whether home market sales were made at a different level of trade than 
U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. We found that there were significant differences 
between the selling activities associated with the CEP level of trade 
and those associated with the home market level of trade and, thus, we 
found the CEP level of trade to be different from the home market level 
of trade. Further, we found the CEP level of trade to be at a less 
advanced stage of distribution than the home market level of trade.
    Because AVISMA reported no home market levels of trade that were 
equivalent to the CEP level of trade and because we determined that the 
CEP level of trade was at a less advanced stage than the single home 
market level of trade, we were unable to determine a level-of-trade 
adjustment based on the respondent's home market sales of the foreign 
like product. Furthermore, we have no other information that provides 
an appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For 
AVISMA's CEP sales, we made a CEP-offset adjustment in accordance with 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. For a description of our level-of-
trade analysis for these preliminary results, see Preliminary Analysis 
Memo.

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of the preliminary results and in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act, we made currency conversions based on the 
official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as 
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. See 19 CFR 351.415.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margins on magnesium metal from the 
Russian Federation exist for the period April 1, 2009, through March 
31, 2010:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSC VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation...............................         0.00
Solikamsk Magnesium Works..................................            *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has an
  individual rate from the last segment of the proceeding in which the
  firm had shipments or sales.

Disclosure and Public Comment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to any 
party to the proceeding the calculations performed in connection with 
these preliminary results within five days after the date of 
publication of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment 
on the preliminary results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.309(c), case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to 
the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Interested parties 
may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of 
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, which must be 
limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later 
than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 
review are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of 
the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic 
version included. A list of authorities used and an executive summary 
of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This 
summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310, we will hold a public hearing, 
if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If requested, a hearing 
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, at a time and location to be 
determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and 
location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. 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, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 
30 days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c). Requests should contain (1) the party's name, address, and 
telephone number, (2) the number of participants, and (3) a list of the 
issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an 
affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case 
brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in 
that party's rebuttal brief. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate 
for AVISMA reflecting these preliminary results of review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR produced by AVISMA or SMW for which AVISMA 
or SMW did not know their merchandise was destined for the United 
States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 
entries of merchandise produced by AVISMA or SMW at the all-others rate 
if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) 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).
    The Department intends to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 
days after the publication of the final results of review.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    Because we revoked the order effective April 15, 2010, no cash 
deposits for estimated antidumping duties are required.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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

[[Page 26252]]

occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
    The preliminary results of this administrative review and this 
notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) 
and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 2, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-11122 Filed 5-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P