[Federal Register: April 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 72)]
[Notices]
[Page 20023-20028]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14ap08-35]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-533-847, A-570-934)
1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the Republic of
India and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping
Duty Investigations
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith (India) or Maisha Cryor
(People's Republic of China), AD/CVD Operations, Offices 2 and 4,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1766 or (202) 482-5831,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petitions
On March 19, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
received petitions concerning imports of 1-hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-
diphosphonic acid (HEDP) from the Republic of India (India) (India
petition) and the People's Republic of China (PRC) (PRC petition) filed
in proper form by Compass Chemical International LLC (petitioner). See
the Petitions on HEDP from India and the PRC submitted on March 19,
2008. On March 24 and 25, and April 1, 2008, the Department issued
requests for additional information and clarification of certain areas
of the petitions. Based on the Department's requests, the petitioner
filed additional information on March 27, April 1 and 3, 2008 (two
distinct submissions on general material and one distinct submission on
PRC-only material). On March 28, 2008, Rhodia Inc., a producer of non-
HEDP phosphonates and an importer of HEDP, submitted information
indicating that the petitioner is the only U.S. producer of HEDP.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of HEDP from
India and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United
States at less than fair value, within the meaning of section 731 of
the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening
material injury to, an industry in the United States.
The Department finds that the petitioner filed these petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested
party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and has demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping duty
investigations that the petitioner is requesting that the Department
initiate (see ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions''
section below).
Period of Investigations
The period of investigation (POI) for India is January 1, 2007,
through December 31, 2007. The POI for the PRC is July 1, 2007, through
December 31, 2007. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
Scope of Investigations
The merchandise covered by each of these investigations includes
all grades of aqueous, acidic (non-neutralized) concentrations of 1-
hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid\1\, also referred to as
hydroxethlylidenendiphosphonic acid, hydroxyethanediphosphonic acid,
acetodiphosphonic acid, and etidronic acid. The CAS (Chemical Abstract
Service) registry number for HEDP is 2809-21-4. The merchandise subject
to these investigations is currently classified in the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading
2931.00.9043. It may also enter under HTSUS subheading 2811.19.6090.
While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes only, the written description of the scope of these
investigations is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ C2H8O7P2 or
C(CH3)(OH)(PO3H2)2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on Scope of Investigations
During our review of the petitions, we discussed the scope with the
petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as
discussed in the preamble to the regulations (Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)),
we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested
parties to submit such comments by April 28, 2008, which is 20 calendar
days from the date of signature of this notice. Comments should be
addressed to Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to
provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments
and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary
determinations.
Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires
We are requesting comments from interested parties regarding the
appropriate physical characteristics of HEDP to be reported in response
to the Department's antidumping questionnaires. This information will
be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject
merchandise in order to more accurately report the relevant factors and
costs of production, as well as to develop appropriate product
comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate listing of
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to
which characteristics are appropriate to use as 1) general product
characteristics and 2) the product comparison criteria. We note that it
is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product
comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful
commercial differences among products. In other words, while
[[Page 20024]]
there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by
manufacturers to describe HEDP, it may be that only a select few
product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful
physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment
on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in
product matching. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most
important physical characteristics first and the least important
characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in
developing and issuing the antidumping duty questionnaires, we must
receive comments at the above-referenced address by April 28, 2008.
Additionally, rebuttal comments must be received by May 5, 2008.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department
shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine industry support using a
statistically valid sampling method.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which
is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic
like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different
purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In
addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of
time and information. Although this may result in different definitions
of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of
either agency contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.
Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United
States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir.
1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989).
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation
under this subtitle.'' Thus, the reference point from which the
domestic like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an
investigation,'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the
petition).
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not
offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of
the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted
on the record, we have determined that HEDP constitutes a single
domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of
that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like
product analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: HEDP from India, Industry Support at Attachment
II (India Initiation Checklist), and Antidumping Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: HEDP from the People's Republic of China (PRC),
Industry Support at Attachment II (PRC Initiation Checklist) on file in
the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117 of the main Department of
Commerce building.
Our review of the data provided in the petitions, supplemental
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department
indicates that the petitioner has established industry support. To
establish industry support, the petitioner demonstrated that it was the
sole producer of the domestic like product in 2007. Therefore, the
petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers)
accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the
domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to
take further action to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling). See
Section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act. In addition, the domestic producers
have met the statutory criteria for industry support under
732(c)(4)(A)(i) because the domestic producers (or workers) who support
the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of
the domestic like product. Finally, the domestic producers have met the
statutory criteria for industry support under 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) because
the domestic producers (or workers) who support the petition account
for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or
opposition to, the petition. Accordingly, the Department determines
that the petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within
the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. See India Initiation
Checklist and PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Industry
Support).
The Department finds that the petitioner filed the petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping
investigations that it is requesting the Department initiate. See India
Initiation Checklist and PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment II
(Industry Support).
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened
with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject
merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). The petitioner
contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by
reduced market share, reduced production and capacity utilization,
reduced shipments, underselling and price depressing and suppressing
effects, lost sales, a decline in financial performance, and an
increase in import penetration. We have assessed the allegations and
supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material
injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations
are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory
requirements for initiation. See India Initiation Checklist and PRC
Initiation Checklist at Attachment III.
Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to
initiate these investigations of imports of HEDP from India and the
PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to
[[Page 20025]]
the U.S. price, constructed value (CV) (for India), and the factors of
production (for the PRC) are also discussed in the country-specific
initiation checklists. See India Initiation Checklist and PRC
Initiation Checklist. Should the need arise to use any of this
information as facts available under section 776 of the Act in our
preliminary or final determinations, we will reexamine the information
and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate.
India
Export Price (EP)
The petitioner calculated one EP based on a price quote for Indian-
produced HEDP during the POI obtained from one of its U.S. customers.
The petitioner made adjustments to the starting price for U.S. inland
freight, ocean freight, and marine insurance charges. The petitioner
calculated U.S. inland freight, ocean freight, and marine insurance
charges based on price quotes obtained from a freight service provider.
See India Initiation Checklist for further discussion.
NV Based on CV
With respect to NV, the petitioner states that neither home-market
prices nor third-country prices of Indian-produced HEDP were reasonably
available. According to the petitioner, it was unsuccessful in
obtaining such pricing information, despite its best efforts. See India
petition at pages 17-18. Therefore, the petitioner based NV on CV.
Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of
manufacture (COM); selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses;
packing expenses; and profit. In calculating COM (exclusive of factory
overhead) and packing, the petitioner based the quantity of each of the
inputs used to manufacture and pack HEDP in India on its own production
experience during the POI. The petitioner then multiplied the usage
quantities by the value of the inputs used to manufacture and pack HEDP
in India based on publicly available data. In calculating factory
overhead expenses, SG&A expenses and profit, the petitioner used the
financial statements of Excel Industries Limited (Excel), an Indian
manufacturer of HEDP. The petitioner used a calculation methodology for
purposes of deriving CV in the India petition that is consistent with
the calculation methodology used in the PRC petition. We made minor
modifications to the petitioner's CV calculation to adjust the values
of certain inputs included in COM ((i.e., water, hydrochloric acid and
phosphorus trichloride), consistent with Department practice. See the
India petition at pages 12-18, India Initiation Checklist, and ``NV''
section below for further discussion.
PRC
EP
The petitioner calculated one EP based on a sale for PRC-produced
HEDP during the POI. The petitioner made adjustments to the starting
price for ocean freight and marine insurance charges. The petitioner
calculated ocean freight and marine insurance charges based on an
actual price paid for these expenses. The petitioner also made a
deduction to the starting price for commission expenses. The petitioner
calculated commission expenses based on its own industry knowledge and
experience. See PRC Initiation Checklist and ``Fair Value Comparisons''
section below for further discussion.
NV
The petitioner notes that the PRC is a non-market economy country
(NME) and that no determination to the contrary has yet been made by
the Department. See PRC petition, at page 12. The Department has
previously examined the PRC's market status and determined that NME
status should continue for the PRC. See Memorandum from the Office of
Policy to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, regarding The People's Republic of China Status as a
Non-Market Economy, dated May 15, 2006 (available online at http://
ia.ita.doc.gov/download /prc-nme-status/prc-nme-status-memo.pdf). In
addition, in recent investigations, the Department has continued to
determine that the PRC is an NME country. See Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the
People's Republic of China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007); Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Activated
Carbon from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 9508 (March 2, 2007).
In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the
presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the
Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been
revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for
purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV
of the product is appropriately based on factors of production valued
in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section
773(c) of the Act. In the course of this investigation, all parties
will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to
the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates
to individual exporters.
The petitioner argues that India is the appropriate surrogate
country for the PRC because it is at a comparable level of economic
development and it is a significant producer of HEDP. See PRC Petition
at page 12. The petitioner asserts that other potential surrogate
countries are not known manufacturers of HEDP. See petition at page 12;
PRC Initiation Checklist. Based on the information provided by the
petitioner, the Department believes that the use of India as a
surrogate country is appropriate for purposes of initiation. However,
after initiation of the investigation, interested parties will have the
opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection
and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an
opportunity to submit publicly available information to value factors
of production within 40 days after the date of publication of the
preliminary determination.
The petitioner calculated NV and a dumping margin for the U.S.
price, discussed above, using the Department's NME methodology as
required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. The
petitioner calculated NV based on its own consumption rates for
producing HEDP in 2007. See PRC Initiation Checklist and India
Initiation Checklist. The petitioner states that its production
experience is representative of the production process used in the PRC
and India because all of the material inputs and processing are
unlikely to be materially different for a Chinese or Indian producer of
HEDP. See petitions at Exhibit AD-1, Affidavit 3.
The petitioner valued the factors of production based on reasonably
available, public surrogate country data, including India statistics
from the Export Import Data Bank, Key World Energy Statistics 2003,
published by the International Energy Agency, the Gas Authority of
India, and the Maharastra Industrial Development Corporation. See PRC
Initiation Checklist and India Initiation Checklist. Where the
petitioner was unable to find input prices contemporaneous with the
POI, the petitioner adjusted for inflation using the wholesale price
index for India, as published by the Office of the Economic Advisor to
India. See petitions at page 16 and Exhibit AD-11.
[[Page 20026]]
In addition, the petitioner made currency conversions, where necessary,
based on the POI-average rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate, as reported
on the Department's website. See petitions at page 12. The petitioner
did not calculate a labor cost for the PRC because it states that the
cost is ``negligible.'' Id. at page 13.\2\ For purposes of initiation,
the Department determines that the surrogate values used by the
petitioner are reasonably available and, thus, acceptable for purposes
of initiation. However, the Department has made minor modifications, as
appropriate, to the surrogate values as calculated by the petitioner
(i.e., water, hydrochloric acid and phosphorus trichloride). See PRC
Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The petitioner did calculate a labor cost for India based on
rates obtained from the Department's website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner based factory overhead expenses, SG&A expenses, and
profit, on data from Excel for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007.
See petitions at pages 15-16 and Exhibit AD-10. For purposes of
initiation, the Department finds the petitioner's use of Excel's
financial ratios appropriate.
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to
believe that imports of HEDP from India and the PRC are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based
on a comparison of EP and CV, calculated in accordance with section
773(a)(4) of the Act, the revised estimated dumping margin for HEDP
from India is 42.74 percent. See India Initiation Checklist at
Attachment VIII. Based on comparisons of EP to NV, calculated in
accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the revised estimated
dumping margin for HEDP from the PRC is 72.42 percent. See PRC
Initiation Checklist at Attachment V.
Initiation of Antidumping Investigations
Based upon the examination of the petitions on HEDP from India and
the PRC, the Department finds that the petitions meet the requirements
of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping
duty investigations to determine whether imports of HEDP from India and
the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at
less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the
Act, unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no
later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
Respondent Selection for India
For the India investigation, the Department intends to select
respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for
U.S. imports during the POI. We intend to release the CBP data under
Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties having an APO
within five days of publication of this Federal Register notice, and
make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of
publication of this notice. The Department invites comments regarding
the CBP data and respondent selection within 10 days of publication of
this Federal Register notice.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Instructions for filing such
applications may be found on the Department's website at http://
ia.ita.doc.gov/apo.
Respondent Selection for the PRC
In the PRC investigation, the Department will request quantity and
value information from all known exporters and producers identified in
the petition. The quantity and value data received from NME exporters/
producers will be used as the basis to select the mandatory
respondents. The Department requires that the respondents submit a
response to both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-
rate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive
consideration for separate-rate status. See Circular Welded Austenitic
Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Initiation
of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 10221, 10225 (February 26,
2008); and Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist
Canvas From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April
28, 2005). Appendix I of this notice contains the quantity and value
questionnaire that must be submitted by all NME exporters/producers no
later than April 29, 2008. In addition, the Department will post the
quantity and value questionnaire along with the filing instructions on
the Import Administration website, at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-
highlights-and-news.html. The Department will send the quantity and
value questionnaire to those PRC companies identified in the PRC
petition at page 9 and Exhibit AD-3.
Separate Rates
In order to obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations,
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate status application.
See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of
Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market
Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (Separate Rates/Combination Rates
Bulletin), available on the Department's website at http://
ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. The specific requirements for
submitting the separate-rate application in this investigation are
outlined in detail in the application itself, available on the
Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-
news.html on the date of publication of this initiation notice in the
Federal Register. The separate-rate application will be due by June 9,
2008.
Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation
The Department will calculate combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this
investigation. The Separate Rates/Combination Rates Bulletin states:
{w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates
only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now
assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers
that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note,
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of
investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents
receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool
of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the
individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the
application of ``combination rates'' because such rates apply to
specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-
deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise
both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.
See Separate Rates/Combination Rates Bulletin, at 6.
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public versions of the petitions have been
provided to the representatives of the Governments of India and the
PRC. We will attempt
[[Page 20027]]
to provide a copy of the public version of the petitions to the foreign
producers/exporters, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
International Trade Commission Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section
732(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the International Trade Commission
The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than May 5, 2008,
whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of HEDP from
India and the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material
injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination with respect
to either of the investigations will result in that investigation being
terminated; otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to
statutory and regulatory time limits.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: April 8, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of
subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as
amended) permits us to investigate (1) a sample of exporters,
producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on
the information available at the time of selection, or (2) exporters
and producers accounting for the largest volume and value of the
subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined.
In the chart below, please provide the total quantity and total value
of all your sales of merchandise covered by the scope of this
investigation (see scope section of this notice), produced in the PRC,
and exported/shipped to the United States during the period July 1,
2007, through December 31, 2007.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Total Quantity Terms of Sale Total Value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................
1. Export Price Sales......................................... ............................ ............................ ............................
2............................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................
a. Exporter name............................................. ............................ ............................ ............................
b. Address................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................
c. Contact................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................
d. Phone No.................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................
e. Fax No.................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................
3. Constructed Export Price Sales............................. ............................ ............................ ............................
4. Further Manufactured Sales................................. ............................ ............................ ............................
Total Sales................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please provide the following information for your company. If you
believe that you should be treated as a single entity along with other
named exporters, please provide the information requested below both in
the aggregate for all named entities in your group and separately for
each named entity. Please label each chart accordingly.
(1) Production
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market: Total Quantity: ( In MT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your total production of all ....................................
merchandise meeting the
description of HEDP identified in
the ``Scope of Investigations''
section of this notice, produced
during the period of
investigation (``POI'')
(regardless of the ultimate
market destination)..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2)U.S. Sales
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merchandise Total Quantity: (In MT) Total Value ($U.S.\1\ )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merchandise under investigation your company produced and ....................... .......................
shipped/exported to the United States during the POI.........
Merchandise under investigation exported/shipped to the United ....................... .......................
States by your company during the POI which was sourced from
an unaffiliated supplier or suppliers (i.e., not produced by
your company)................................................
Merchandise under investigation produced by your company but ....................... .......................
exported/shipped through another PRC company to the United
States during the POI........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Values should be expressed in U.S. dollars. Indicate any exchange rates used and their respective dates and
sources.
Total Quantity:
Please report quantity on a metric ton basis. If any
conversions were used, please provide the conversion formula and
source.
Terms of Sales:
Please report all sales on the same terms, such as ``free
on board'' at port of export.
Total Value:
All sales values should be reported in U.S. dollars.
Please provide any exchange rates used and their respective dates and
sources.
Export Price Sales:
Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an export price
sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated customer occurs before
importation into the United States.
Please include any sales exported by your company directly
to the United States.
Please include any sales exported by your company to a
third-country market economy reseller where you
[[Page 20028]]
had knowledge that the merchandise was destined to be resold to the
United States.
If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please
include any sales manufactured by your company that were subsequently
exported by an affiliated exporter to the United States.
Please do not include any sales of merchandise
manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures.
Constructed Export Price Sales:
Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a constructed
export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated customer
occurs after importation. However, if the first sale to the
unaffiliated customer is made by a person in the United States
affiliated with the foreign exporter, constructed export price applies
even if the sale occurs prior to importation.
Please include any sales exported by your company directly
to the United States.
Please include any sales exported by your company to a
third-country market economy reseller where you had knowledge that the
merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States.
If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please
include any sales manufactured by your company that were subsequently
exported by an affiliated exporter to the United States.
Please do not include any sales of merchandise
manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures.
Further Manufactured Sales:
Further manufacture or assembly (including re-packing)
sales (``further manufactured sales'') refers to merchandise that
undergoes further manufacture or assembly in the United States before
being sold to the first unaffiliated customer.
Further manufacture or assembly costs include amounts
incurred for direct materials, labor and overhead, plus amounts for
general and administrative expense, interest expense, and additional
packing expense incurred in the country of further manufacture, as well
as all costs involved in moving the product from the U.S. port of entry
to the further manufacturer.
[FR Doc. E8-7894 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S