[Federal Register: May 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 24506-24510]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10my05-21]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-469-814]
Chlorinated Isocyanurates From Spain: Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') has determined
that chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain are being sold, or are likely
to be sold, in the United States at less than fair value (``LTFV''), as
provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the
Act''). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Final
Determination of Investigation'' section of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: May 10, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin and Mark Manning, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3936 or (202) 482-5253, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
On December 20, 2004, the Department published the preliminary
determination of sales at LTFV in the antidumping investigation of
chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain. See Chlorinated Isocyanurates
From Spain: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 69 FR 75902
(December 20, 2004) (``Preliminary Determination''). Since the
Preliminary Determination, the following events have occurred.
On January 12, 2005, the petitioners \1\ submitted a request for a
public hearing. We conducted verification of the sales and cost
questionnaire responses of Aragonesas Delsa S.A. (``Delsa''), the sole
respondent in this investigation, from January 31, 2005, through
February 11, 2005. On February 17, 2005, Delsa submitted revised sales
data resulting
[[Page 24507]]
from corrections made at verification. We gave interested parties an
opportunity to comment on our Preliminary Determination and our
findings at verification. On March 15, 2005, the petitioners and
respondent submitted case briefs, and on March 22, 2005, these parties
submitted rebuttal briefs. The Department held a public hearing on
March 29, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioners in this investigation are Clearon
Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation (collectively, the
``petitioners'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 2003, through
March 31, 2004. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are chlorinated
isocyanurates. Chlorinated isocyanurates are derivatives of cyanuric
acid, described as chlorinated s-triazine triones. There are three
primary chemical compositions of chlorinated isocyanurates: (1)
Trichloroisocyanuric acid (Cl3(NCO)3), (2) sodium
dichloroisocyanurate (dihydrate) (NaCl2(NCO)3
2H2O), and (3) sodium dichloroisocyanurate (anhydrous)
(NaCl2(NCO)3). Chlorinated isocyanurates are
available in powder, granular, and tableted forms. This investigation
covers all chlorinated isocyanurates.
Chlorinated isocyanurates are currently classifiable under
subheadings 2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, and 2933.69.6050 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'').\2\ The
tariff classification 2933.69.6015 covers sodium dichloroisocyanurates
(anhydrous and dihydrate forms) and trichloroisocyanuric acid. The
tariff classifications 2933.69.6021 and 2933.69.6050 represent basket
categories that include chlorinated isocyanurates and other compounds
including an unfused triazine ring. Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description
of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In the scope section of the Department's initiation and in
its Preliminary Determination, chlorinated isocyanurates were
classified under subheading 2933.69.6050 of the HTSUS. See
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Chlorinated
Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China and Spain, 69 FR
32488 (June 10, 2004). Effective January 1, 2005, chlorinated
isocyanurates are also currently classifiable under new subheadings
2933.69.6015 and 2933.69.6021 of the HTSUS. The new subheading
2933.69.6015 covers sodium dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and
dihydrate forms) and trichloroisocyanuric acid, while subheading
2933.69.6021 covers all other chlorinated isocyanurates used as
pesticides (bactericides). Subheading 2933.69.6050 covers all other
chlorinated isocyanurates not used as pesticides. See Memorandum to
James Doyle, Office 9, dated February 16, 2005, from Tom Futtner,
Liaison w/Customs, Customs Unit, regarding Request for HTS Number
Update(s) to AD/CVD Module Chlorinated Isos (A-570-898) (added to
the record of the instant investigation in Memorandum from Thomas
Martin to the File, dated April 25, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope Comments
On July 1, 2004, Arch Chemicals, Inc. (``Arch''), an importer,
argued that its patented, formulated, chlorinated isocyanurates tablet
is not covered by the scope of this investigation. In the Preliminary
Determination, we found that Arch's patented chlorinated isocyanurates
tablet is included within the scope of this antidumping duty
investigation.
See Preliminary Determination, and Memorandum from Holly A. Kuga,
Senior Office Director, to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, ``Scope of the Antidumping Duty
Investigations of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic
of China and Spain,'' dated December 10, 2004. We received no further
comments from any interested party regarding our preliminary decision
on this issue. Therefore, for this final determination, we find that
Arch's patented chlorinated isocyanurates tablet is included within the
scope of this antidumping duty investigation.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the
Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Memorandum from Barbara E.
Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final
Determination in the Antidumping Investigation of Chlorinated
Isocyanurates from Spain,'' (``Issues and Decision Memorandum'') dated
concurrently with this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice.
Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this
investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public
memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of
the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete
version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly
on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/list.html. The
paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum
are identical in content.
Partial Adverse Facts Available
A. Use of Facts Available
As further discussed below, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(B) and
(C), and 776(b) of the Act, the Department determines that the
application of partial adverse facts available (``AFA'') is warranted
for Delsa's home market (``HM'') inland freight and U.S. market
movement expenses. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if an
interested party (A) withholds information that has been requested by
the Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely
manner or in the form or manner requested, subject to sections
782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding
under the antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to
subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching
the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that
the Department must inform the interested party of the nature of any
deficiency in its response and, to the extent practicable, allow the
interested party to remedy or explain such deficiency. Pursuant to
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not decline to consider
submitted information if all of the following requirements are met: (1)
The information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the
information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete
that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable
determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted
to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without
undue difficulties.
We find that pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act,
we should apply facts available to Delsa's HM inland freight and U.S.
market movement expenses (consisting of foreign inland freight, foreign
brokerage and handling, international freight, and U.S. brokerage and
handling) because (1) Delsa failed to accurately and timely report
these expenses; (2) Delsa took action that further impeded the
Department's ability to conduct the proceeding; and (3) Delsa provided
information that could not be verified.
With respect to HM inland freight, Delsa stated in its initial and
first supplemental section B questionnaire responses that it reported
its HM inland freight using an allocation methodology. See August 23,
2004, Section B submission at 11 and September 29, 2004, first
supplemental Section B submission at 7. In our second
[[Page 24508]]
supplemental questionnaire, we instructed Delsa to provide a full
explanation of the allocation methodology and explain why it represents
a reasonable allocation. Delsa provided a one sentence answer in its
second supplemental response: ``We have revised our home market sales
file with the actual amount of freight for each transaction.'' See
November 22, 2004, second supplemental Section B submission at 3.
(Emphasis added). Furthermore, Delsa reiterated in its third
supplemental questionnaire response that it reported actual HM inland
freight expenses. See December 2, 2004, third supplemental
questionnaire submission at 4. Given that Delsa stated that it reported
the actual amount of freight for each transaction, the Department
concluded that Delsa no longer used an allocation methodology.
However, at verification, Delsa stated that it had incorrectly
reported to the Department that it was submitting actual transaction-
specific freight cost data for its HM sales, and instead submitted a
worksheet that provided a limited overview of its allocation
methodology. At verification, the Department tested the results of this
allocation methodology against actual costs in selected sales and found
the discrepancies between the actual and allocated freight to be so
great as to indicate that the allocation methodology does not result in
per-unit expenses that reasonably approximate the actual expenses. At
no point in this investigation, prior to verification, did Delsa notify
the Department that it had any difficulties complying with the
Department's requests for information. Delsa did not seek guidance on
the applicable reporting requirements as contemplated by section
782(c)(1) of the Act. Instead, Delsa only reported at the start of
verification that it had reported its HM inland freight expenses using
an allocation methodology, after reporting in its last two supplemental
questionnaire responses that it was providing actual HM inland freight
expenses for each sale. Based on the above, we find that Delsa failed
to provide accurate and timely information in the form and manner
requested by the Department, within the meaning of section 776(a)(2)(B)
of the Act.
See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3.
In addition, Delsa's failure to provide accurate and timely
information concerning its HM freight expenses prevented the Department
from requesting supplemental information regarding these expenses.
Without this information, we were unable to satisfy ourselves that the
information reported was complete and accurate. Since the Department
does not accept new information at verification, and this allocation
methodology was new information, we were precluded from verifying the
specifics of how Delsa allocated its freight costs. Delsa thus took
specific action to prevent the Department from determining the
reliability of central elements of its responses, thereby impeding the
proceeding. This action warrants the application of facts available
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act.
In regard to Delsa's U.S. movement expenses, Delsa reported to the
Department in its questionnaire responses that it reported the actual
costs that it was charged by its freight forwarder. The Department made
supplemental requests for information regarding these movement
expenses, and Delsa made corrections and provided explanations. See,
e.g., September 29, 2004, supplemental section C submission at Exhibits
C-7a and C-7b. However, Delsa reported at the beginning of the
Department's verification that it made multiple errors affecting three
reported movement expenses (foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage
and handling, and international freight), with an undetermined, varying
impact on each sale. Specifically, the errors were (1) failure to take
account of containers that were only partially filled; (2) failure to
take account of the decrease in freight charges on larger volume
transactions; (3) failure to report the costs from another freight
forwarding company that was used during the POI; (4) failure to account
for changes that took place in the freight fee schedules; (5) failure
to report the correct foreign inland freight for sales that originated
from one of its factories; and (6) failure to account for weight
differences in allocating costs to containers that held a mix of
products that vary by weight. These errors affect a large number of
U.S. sales and have an overlapping effect, so that the Department is
unable to separately analyze the errors on an individual basis.
Moreover, these errors have a large impact on the reported per-unit
expenses for each variable. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 4. Furthermore, Delsa reported its U.S. brokerage and handling
expenses for the first time at verification, even though Delsa denied
having the ability to report this expense in its initial and first
supplemental questionnaire responses. Delsa did not seek guidance
concerning this expense on the applicable reporting requirements, as
contemplated by section 782(c)(1) of the Act.
Based on the above, for its U.S. movement expenses (consisting of
foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international
freight, and U.S. brokerage and handling), we find that Delsa failed to
provide requested information before the established deadlines and in
the form and manner requested by the Department, within the meaning of
section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act.
We further find that Delsa has significantly impeded the proceeding
by providing changes to all of its U.S. movement expenses at the start
of verification that significantly affect a large quantity of U.S.
sales and have a large impact on the reported per-unit expenses.
Calculation of U.S. movement expenses is necessary to the Department's
calculation of net U.S. prices, which is in turn necessary to calculate
accurate dumping margins. The information is in the respondent's
possession and cannot otherwise be obtained by the Department.
Therefore, we find that Delsa has significantly impeded the proceeding
within the meaning of section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act.
Furthermore, with respect to both HM inland freight and U.S. market
movement expenses, Delsa has not met the requirements of sections
782(d) and (e) of the Act. Section 782(d) of the Act is not applicable
because Delsa did not provide enough information to the Department to
indicate that its reporting methodology for these HM and U.S. movement
expenses might be deficient until the start of verification. It was not
until verification that the Department was aware of the use of an
allocation methodology for HM inland freight and the extent of the
errors (i.e., in terms of quantity and volume) in Delsa's reported U.S.
movement expenses. By this time, it was too late to notify Delsa of any
deficiencies, obtain the allocation methodologies and possibly new
data, and examine such methodologies and data for deficiencies.
Similarly, section 782(e) of the Act has also not been satisfied
because Delsa failed to submit before the deadlines established by the
Department reasonably accurate HM inland freight and U.S. movement
expenses. In its response to the Department's second supplemental
questionnaire, when the Department requested detailed information
regarding Delsa's HM inland freight expense and U.S. movement expense
reporting methodologies, Delsa reported that it provided actual HM
expenses and U.S. market movement expenses based upon its freight
schedules. At that time, Delsa did not acknowledge that its HM inland
[[Page 24509]]
freight costs were, in fact, reported on an allocated basis. For U.S.
movement expenses, Delsa reported significantly inaccurate U.S.
movement expenses, due to its failure to go beyond the freight
schedules, and take into account divergences from the scheduled fees.
These statements by Delsa prevented the Department from asking
additional questions about the methodology that Delsa actually did use.
Thus, Delsa has failed to satisfy the requirements of subsections (1)
and (2) of section 782(e).
B. Adverse Inferences
Once the Department determines that the use of facts available is
warranted, the Department must then determine whether an adverse
inference is warranted pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, which
permits the Department to apply an adverse inference if it makes the
additional finding that an interested party has failed to cooperate by
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's
requests for information.
In determining whether a respondent has failed to cooperate to the
best of its ability, the Department need not make a determination
regarding the willfulness of the respondent's conduct. Nippon Steel
Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Instead,
the courts have made clear that the Department must articulate its
reasons for concluding that a party failed to cooperate to the best of
its ability, and explain why the missing information is significant to
the review. In determining whether a party failed to cooperate to the
best of its ability, the Department considers whether a party could
comply with the request for information, and whether a party paid
sufficient attention to its statutory duties. Pacific Giant, Inc. v.
United States, 223 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1342 (CIT 2002); see also Tung
Mung Dev. Co. v. United States, 2001 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 94 at 89
(July 3, 2001). The Department also considers whether there is at issue
a ``pattern of behavior.'' Borden, Inc. v. United States, 22 C.I.T.
1153 (CIT 1998)
As discussed below, we determine that, within the meaning of
section 776(b) of the Act, Delsa failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with the Department's request for
information by not providing it with timely and accurate HM inland
freight and U.S. movement expenses, and that the application of partial
AFA is therefore warranted. On more than one occasion, Delsa failed to
provide information when requested to do so by the Department.
Specifically, Delsa misrepresented the nature of its HM inland freight
data in its last two supplemental questionnaire responses by reporting
to the Department that for its HM sales, it reported actual,
transaction-specific inland freight costs. This precluded the
Department from making supplemental requests for information regarding
the allocation methodology that it did use. Delsa's misrepresentation
prevented the Department from issuing supplemental questions that might
otherwise have resulted in changes to the methodology, to make the
methodology reasonable, such that the Department could have accepted
it. In its questionnaire responses, Delsa did not provide evidence to
support its allocation methodology, as it is required to do pursuant to
19 CFR 351.401(g)(2). Delsa failed to fully demonstrate that it could
not provide its HM freight on an actual, transaction-specific basis.
Moreover, Delsa failed to demonstrate that its allocation methodology
did not yield distortive or inaccurate results. Without accurately
reported expenses and costs, the Department is unable to calculate
accurate net HM prices, which prevents the Department from calculating
accurate dumping margins. We find that Delsa did not act to the best of
its ability in reporting HM inland freight expenses, and therefore an
adverse inference is warranted. As partial AFA, we are applying the
lowest verified inland freight cost to all HM sales made by Delsa
during the POI, except for those sales examined at verification and
sales of a particular CONNUM for which Delsa provided actual, invoiced
freight expenses during verification (and the Department successfully
tested for accuracy). A complete explanation of the selection and
application of partial AFA can be found in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 3.
Delsa also failed to accurately report its U.S. movement expenses
(consisting of foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling,
and international freight), despite having three opportunities to do so
in response to the Department's initial and supplemental
questionnaires. Delsa reported corrections to multiple errors with
respect to these variables at the Department's verification. Since each
of these errors affect more than one movement variable, the overall
impact of these errors on the reported variables is actually a net
change resulting in increases and decreases of Delsa's reported U.S.
movement expenses. Because (1) There were six errors affecting three
variables, (2) the separate effect of each individual error cannot be
determined with information on the record, as Delsa only provided the
Department with the net effect of all of the errors, (3) the errors
affect a large quantity of U.S. sales, and (4) the impact of these
errors on the reported per-unit expense is also large, the corrections
for these errors cannot be considered as minor corrections to the U.S.
sales database. In addition, U.S. brokerage and handling was an expense
that Delsa reported that it did not have until the Department's
verification, even though the Department asked supplemental questions
on this topic. The Court of International Trade has found that the
``respondent bears the burden of creating a complete and adequate
record upon which the Department can make its determination.'' See NSK
Ltd. v. United States, 919 F. Supp. 442, 449 (CIT 1996). See also
Tianjin Mach. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 353 F. Supp. 2d 1294,
1305 (CIT 2004) (``Although the standard does not demand perfection, it
censures inattentiveness and carelessness.''). Therefore, the
Department determines that Delsa failed to act to the best of its
ability, and thus determines that partial adverse facts is warranted in
this case. As partial AFA, we have selected the highest non-
aberrational reported freight cost for all four U.S. freight variables.
We have applied these per-unit expenses to all U.S. sales made by Delsa
during the POI, except for those sales that were examined at
verification. A complete explanation of the selection and application
of partial AFA can be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 4.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the
information submitted by Delsa for use in our final determination. We
used standard verification procedures including examination of relevant
accounting and production records, and original source documents
provided by the respondent.
Changes Since the Preliminary Determination
Based on our findings at verification, and analysis of comments
received, we have made certain adjustments to the margin calculations
used in the Preliminary Determination. These adjustments are discussed
in detail in the Issues and Decision Memorandum and are listed below:
1. We corrected a clerical error with respect to our recalculation
of HM credit expense.
2. We corrected a clerical error regarding the customer code used
to allocate certain freight expenses incurred by Delsa for defective
[[Page 24510]]
merchandise returned from the United States. In addition, although not
a clerical error, we changed the allocation methodology to ensure a
more appropriate allocation of these expenses. Lastly, we added U.S.
brokerage and handling expenses to this calculation.
3. We applied partial AFA to Delsa's HM inland freight for sales
that are not based upon actual, transaction-specific costs, and which
have not been specifically verified.
4. We applied partial AFA to Delsa's foreign inland freight,
foreign brokerage and handling, and international freight for all U.S.
sales that have not been specifically verified.
5. We applied AFA to Delsa's U.S. brokerage and handling expenses
that were reported for the first time during verification.
6. We revised the interest rate used in calculating U.S. credit
expenses to the correct POI-average Federal Reserve rate.
7. We eliminated the second rebate variable from Delsa's HM price
adjustments, pursuant to a minor correction that Delsa submitted at
verification.
8. We recalculated Delsa's packaging costs to equal the packaging
and packing costs reported for the Preliminary Determination less the
packing expenses identified at verification. Accordingly, we revised
the reported packing expenses to equal the packing expenses identified
at verification. Since Delsa packs its products in an identical manner
regardless of the market to which they are sold, we used the same
values for packing in the home and U.S. markets.
9. We recalculated the adjustments to certain raw material costs
based on the comparison of Delsa's reported transfer prices and market
prices obtained at verification.
10. We adjusted the startup period for purposes of determining the
amount, if any, of the startup adjustment.
11. We recalculated Delsa's financial expense ratio to include net
foreign exchange losses in the numerator.
Final Determination of Investigation
We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins
exist for the period April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aragonesas Delsa S.A........................... 24.83
All Others..................................... 24.83
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue to suspend
liquidation of all entries of chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain that
are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after
December 20, 2004, the date of publication of the Preliminary
Determination in the Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to continue
to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond for each entry equal
to the weighted-average dumping margins in the chart above. These
instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further
notice.
International Trade Commission Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our determination. As our
final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine, within 45
days, whether these imports are causing material injury, or threat of
material injury, to an industry in the United States. If the ITC
determines that material injury or threat of injury does not exist, the
proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be
refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does
exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing
CBP officials to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of
liquidation.
Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 735(d) and 777(I) of the Act.
Dated: May 2, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix--Issues and Decision Memorandum
Part I: Corrections to the Preliminary Calculations:
Comment 1: Corrections to the Preliminary Calculations.
Part II: Home Market (``HM'') Sales Issues:
Comment 2: Whether Delsa's Allocation Methodology for HM Inland
Freight Results in Unreliable Allocations.
Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Apply Partial Adverse
Facts Available (``AFA'') to Delsa's HM Inland Freight.
Part III: United States Sales Issues:
Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Apply Partial AFA to
Delsa's Foreign Inland Freight, Foreign Brokerage and Handling,
International Freight Expenses, and U.S. Brokerage and Handling
Expenses.
Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Apply the Calculated
U.S. Average Short-Term Borrowing Rate to All U.S. Sales.
Part IV: Cost of Production (``COP'') Issues:
Comment 6: Whether the Department Double Counted Delsa's
Reported Packaging and Packing Costs in the Preliminary
Determination.
Comment 7: Whether the Packaging and Packing Service Provider is
an Affiliated Party and, as Such, Whether the Department Should
Adjust the Price of the Services Provided by a Affiliated Party.
Comment 8: Whether Certain Raw Material Inputs Should be
Adjusted in Accordance with the Department's Major Input Rule.
Comment 9: Whether the Department Should Allow Delsa's Claimed
Startup Adjustment.
Comment 10: Whether the Department Should Adjust Delsa's
Financial Expense Ratio for Foreign Exchange Gains and Losses.
Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Make Certain
Adjustments to Delsa's General and Administrative Expense Ratio.
[FR Doc. E5-2236 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am]