[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 47 (Thursday, March 11, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11517-11522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5369]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-837]
Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from Mexico: Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of
Final Determination
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department)
preliminarily determines that certain magnesia carbon bricks (bricks)
from Mexico are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States
at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margins of
sales at LTFV are listed in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section
of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this
preliminary determination. Pursuant to a request from the respondent,
we are postponing for 60 days the final determination and extending
provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six
months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination not later
than 135 days after publication of the preliminary determination.
DATES: Effective Date: March 11, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger or Terre Keaton
Stefanova, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202) 482-4136 and (202) 482-1280, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 18, 2009, the Department initiated the antidumping duty
investigation of BRICKS from Mexico. See Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks
from the People's Republic of China and Mexico: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 74 FR 42852 (August 25, 2009)
(Initiation Notice). The petitioner in this investigation is Resco
Products Inc.
[[Page 11518]]
The Department set aside a period of time for parties to raise
issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit
comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the Initiation
Notice. See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 42853. See also Antidumping
Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). For
further details, see the ``Scope Comments'' section of this notice,
below. The Department also set aside a time for parties to comment on
product characteristics for use in the antidumping duty questionnaire.
During September 2009, we received product characteristic comments from
the petitioner and RHI-Refmex S.A. de C.V. (Refmex), a Mexican producer
and exporter of the subject merchandise. For an explanation of the
product-comparison criteria used in this investigation, see the
``Product Comparisons'' section of this notice, below.
On September 29, 2009, the International Trade Commission (ITC)
published its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a
reasonable indication that imports of bricks from Mexico are materially
injuring the U.S. industry, and the ITC notified the Department of its
finding. See Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks form China and Mexico, 74
FR 49889 (September 29, 2009); see also ``Investigation No. 701-TA-468
and 731-TA-1166-67 (Preliminary),'' USITC Publication 4100 (September
2009).
On September 29, 2009, we selected Refmex as the sole mandatory
respondent in this investigation. See Memorandum entitled:
``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from
Mexico - Selection of Respondents for Individual Review,'' dated
September 29, 2009. We subsequently issued the antidumping
questionnaire to Refmex on September 30, 2009. Refmex submitted
responses to sections A (i.e., the section covering general information
about the company), B (i.e., the section covering comparison market
sales) and C (i.e., the section covering U.S. sales) of the antidumping
duty questionnaire on November 23, 2009. We issued supplemental section
A, B, and C questionnaires, to which Refmex responded during January
and February 2010.
On December 8, 2009, the petitioner made a timely request pursuant
to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) for a 50-day
postponement of the preliminary determination. Pursuant to section
733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department postponed the preliminary
determination of this investigation until February 24, 2010. See
Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of China and
Mexico: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty
Investigations, 74 FR 66954 (December 17, 2009). As explained in the
memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll
deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government
from February 5, through February 12, 2010. Thus, all deadlines in this
segment of the proceeding have been extended by seven days. The revised
deadline for the preliminary determination of this investigation is now
March 3, 2010. See Memorandum to the Record regarding ``Tolling of
Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During
the Recent Snowstorm,'' dated February 12, 2010.
On December 11, 2009, the petitioner alleged that Refmex made
comparison-market sales of bricks at prices below the cost of
production (COP) during the period of investigation (POI).
On January 6, 2010, we initiated an investigation to determine
whether Refmex made comparison-market sales of bricks at prices below
the COP during the POI. See Memorandum entitled ``The Petitioner's
Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for RHI RefMex S.A. de
C.V.,'' dated January 6, 2010. As a result, we requested that Refmex
respond to section D of the questionnaire (i.e., the section covering
COP and constructed value (CV)). See Memorandum entitled: ``Telephone
Conversation with RHI-Refmex Counsel on Initiation of COP Investigation
and Submission of Response to Section D of the Department's
Questionnaire,'' dated January 7, 2010. We issued a supplemental
section D questionnaire to Refmex in February 2010, and received a
response later that month.
The petitioner submitted comments for consideration with respect to
the preliminary determination on February 12, 2010. Refmex responded to
those comments on February 17, 2010.
On February 17, 2010, Refmex requested that, in the event of an
affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the
Department: 1) postpone its final determination by 60 days, in
accordance with 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii);
and 2) extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed
under 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a four-month period to a six-month
period. For further discussion, see the ``Postponement of Final
Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures'' section of this
notice, below.
Period of Investigation
The POI is July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2009. This period corresponds
to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the
filing of the petition. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise under investigation consists of certain chemically-
bonded (resin or pitch), magnesia carbon bricks with a magnesia
component of at least 70 percent magnesia (MgO) by weight, regardless
of the source of raw materials for the MgO, with carbon levels ranging
from trace amounts to 30 percent by weight, regardless of enhancements
(for example, magnesia carbon bricks can be enhanced with coating,
grinding, tar impregnation or coking, high temperature heat treatments,
anti-slip treatments or metal casing) and regardless of whether or not
antioxidants are present (for example, antioxidants can be added to the
mix from trace amounts to 15 percent by weight as various metals, metal
alloys, and metal carbides). Certain magnesia carbon bricks that are
the subject of this investigation are currently classifiable under
subheadings 6902.10.10.00, 6902.10.50.00, 6815.91.00.00, and 6815.99 of
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description is dispositive.
Scope Comments
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations
(see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May
19, 1997)), in our Initiation Notice we set aside a period of time for
parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, and encouraged all
parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of
the Initiation Notice. On September 8, 2009, Pilkington North America
Inc. (PNA), a U.S. importer of BRICKS from the People's Republic of
China (PRC) and Mexico, filed comments concerning the scope of this
investigation and the concurrent antidumping duty and countervailing
duty investigations of certain magnesia carbon bricks from the PRC. In
its submission, PNA requested that the Department amend the scope of
these investigations to exclude ceramic-bonded magnesia bricks with or
without trace amounts of carbon, or clarify that this product is
outside the scope of these investigations. According to PNA, the
ceramic-bonded magnesia bricks it
[[Page 11519]]
imports are clearly not within the intended scope of these
investigations. The petitioner did not file comments on PNA's
submission. On February 24, 2010, the Department issued a memorandum
confirming that ceramic bonded magnesia bricks are not included in the
scope of the investigations. See Memorandum entitled ``Certain Magnesia
Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of China and Mexico: Scope
Comments.''
Product Comparisons
We have taken into account the comments that were submitted by the
interested parties concerning product-comparison criteria. In
accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products produced by
the respondent covered by the description in the ``Scope of
Investigation'' section, above, and sold in Mexico during the POI are
considered to be foreign like product for purposes of determining
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on six
criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison-
market sales of the foreign like product: 1) magnesium oxide content
range, 2) fused magnesia content range, 3) antioxidants, 4) carbon
content range, 5) post-molding treatments, and 6) additives. Where
there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in
the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S.
sales to sales of the next most similar foreign like product on the
basis of the characteristics listed above, which were made in the
ordinary course of trade.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Refmex' sales of bricks from Mexico to the
United States were made at LTFV, we compared the constructed export
price (CEP) to normal value (NV), as described in the ``Constructed
Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In
accordance with section 777A(d)(1) of the Act, we compared POI
weighted-average CEPs to POI weighted-average NVs.
In addition to selling bricks to unaffiliated customers, Refmex
reported that it ships some subject merchandise in the U.S. and Mexican
markets under ``Full Line Service Contracts.'' Under these contracts,
Refmex claims that it or its affiliates consume bricks as part of
broader service agreements with their customers. Refmex did not include
bricks shipped in conjunction with these service contracts in its sales
listings. Refmex claimed that the quantity of bricks shipped in these
instances constitutes a relatively small percentage of the total
quantity of bricks shipped to U.S. and Mexican customers during the
POI. Refmex also claimed that, in fulfilling these contracts, it does
not generate invoices specifying a quantity or price for the bricks
shipped, and, thus, does not record sales of bricks in its accounting
system. Rather, customers pay Refmex or its affiliates based on other
terms specified in the contracts.
Our analysis of the information Refmex provided, including examples
of Full Line Service Contracts, supports Refmex' representations
regarding the complexity of assigning values to the bricks shipped in
the fulfillment of these contracts. Based on this analysis and Refmex'
claim that the shipment of bricks in fulfillment of these contracts
constitutes a relatively small percentage of the total bricks shipped
to U.S. customers during the POI, we have excluded bricks consumed
under these circumstances in both the home and U.S. markets from our
margin analysis.
Constructed Export Price
Pursuant to section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP for those
sales where the subject merchandise was first sold in the United States
after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or
exporter, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporters, to
a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter. In addition,
we calculated CEP for those sales where the subject merchandise was
first sold in the United States before the date of importation by
Refmex' affiliate, Veitsch-Radex America, Inc., located in Mokena,
Illinois (VRA), to unaffiliated purchasers. Refmex classified these
latter sales as export price (EP) sales because it initially reported
that these sales were made outside the United States by its affiliate
Veitsch-Radex America, Inc., located in Burlington, Ontario, Canada
(VRC). Subsequently, Refmex clarified that these sales were made in the
United States by VRA. Accordingly, we have reclassified them as CEP
sales because the merchandise was sold in the United States, before
importation, by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter to a
purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, consistent with
section 772(b) of the Act. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
10022, 10023 (March 9, 2009), unchanged in Stainless Steel Bar From
Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
33995 (July 14, 2009); and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel
Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind
Administrative Review in Part, 72 FR 65701, 65703-04 (November 23,
2007), unchanged in Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate
Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Rescission of Administrative Review in Part,
73 FR 15132 (March 21, 2008).
We based CEP on the packed, ex-warehouse or delivered prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we
adjusted prices for billing adjustments, discounts and rebates. We made
deductions for movement expenses, in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these expenses included, where appropriate,
inland freight from the plant to the U.S. warehouse, U.S. brokerage and
handling expenses (including customs fees), pre-sale warehousing
expenses, and U.S. inland freight from the warehouse to the customer.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b),
we deducted those selling expenses incurred by or for the account of
the producer or exporter in selling the subject merchandise, which are
associated with commercial activities in the United States, no matter
where or when paid, including direct selling expenses (i.e., credit
expenses, technical service expenses, and warranty expenses), and
indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs). We also
deducted from CEP an amount for profit, in accordance with sections
772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act.
Normal Value
A. Home Market Viability and Comparison-Market Selection
To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is
equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S.
sales), we compared Refmex' volume of home market sales of the foreign
like product to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise.
See section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based on this comparison, we
determined that Refmex had a viable home market during the POI.
Consequently, we based NV on home market sales.
B. Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on
[[Page 11520]]
sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the
EP or CEP. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1), the NV LOT is based on the
starting price of the sales in the comparison market or, when NV is
based on constructed value, the starting price of the sales from which
we derive selling, general and administrative expenses, and profit. For
EP sales, the U.S. LOT is based on the starting price of the sales in
the U.S. market, which is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP
sales, the U.S. LOT is based on the starting price of the U.S. sales,
as adjusted under section 772(d) of the Act, which is from the exporter
to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the
unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). If the comparison-
market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the
NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there
is no basis for determining whether the difference in levels between NV
and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision). See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length
Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 - 61733
(November 19, 1997) (Plate from South Africa).
In this investigation, we obtained information from Refmex
regarding the marketing stages involved in making its reported home
market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling
activities performed by the respondent and its affiliates for each
channel of distribution.
Refmex reported that it made all sales in the U.S. market to end-
users. For CEP sales, Refmex reported that its affiliate VRA, supported
by another affiliate, VRC, made sales through five channels of
distribution: 1) direct shipments from the Mexican plant to the U.S.
customer; 2) ex-U.S. warehouse; 3) delivered to the U.S. customer from
a U.S. warehouse; 4) on consignment basis ex-U.S. warehouse; and 5) on
consignment basis delivered to the U.S. customer from a U.S. warehouse.
Because all of Refmex' U.S. sales were CEP sales, we examined only
the selling functions performed by Refmex for these sales, not the
selling functions performed by its affiliates, consistent with our
normal practice. See Plate from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732. We found
that the only selling functions that Refmex performed for all CEP sales
were packing, inventory maintenance (i.e., in Mexico prior to shipment
to the U.S. customer or to U.S. warehouses for resale by Refmex
affiliates to unaffiliated U.S. customers), and order input/processing.
The selling functions performed for all CEP sales were identical.
Therefore, we determined that all CEP sales constituted one LOT.
With respect to home market sales, Refmex reported that sales were
made to end users through two channels of distribution: 1) direct to
customers; and 2) consignment sales from consignment inventories. We
examined the reported selling activities and found that Refmex
performed the following selling functions for both sales channels in
the home market: sales forecasting, strategic/economic planning,
engineering services, sales promotion, packing, inventory maintenance,
order input/processing, direct sales personnel, sales/marketing
support, market research, technical assistance, granting of rebates,
after-sales services, and freight and delivery arrangements.
Furthermore, we found that Refmex performed most of these selling
functions at the same relative level of intensity for all customers in
the comparison market. While we note some difference in intensity in
the inventory maintenance activity between direct sales and consignment
sales, this difference alone is not sufficient to warrant a finding
that the two sales channels constitute different LOTs in the home
market. Therefore, based on our overall analysis, we found that all
home market sales constituted one LOT.
In comparing the home market LOT to the CEP LOT, we found that the
selling activities performed by Refmex for its CEP sales, as described
above, were significantly fewer than the selling activities that it
performed for its home market sales. Therefore, Refmex provided many
more selling functions for its home market sales than it provided for
its CEP sales, thus making the home market LOT more advanced than the
CEP LOT.
Based on the above, we could not match CEP sales to sales at the
same LOT in the home market, nor could we determine an LOT adjustment
based on Refmex' home market sales because there is only one LOT in the
home market. Therefore, it is not possible to determine if there is a
pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV
is based and home market sales at the LOT of the export transaction.
See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Furthermore, we have no other
information that provides an appropriate basis for determining an LOT
adjustment. Consequently, because the data available do not form an
appropriate basis for making an LOT adjustment, even though the home
market LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP
LOT, we made a CEP offset to NV in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B)
of the Act. The CEP offset is calculated as the lesser of: (1) the
indirect selling expenses incurred on the home market sales, or (2) the
indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting price in
calculating CEP. See id.
C. Cost of Production Analysis
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP
based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the
foreign like product, plus an amount for general and administrative
expenses (G&A) and interest expenses (see ``Test of Home Market Sales
Prices'' section below for treatment of home market selling expenses
and packing costs). We relied on the COP data submitted by Refmex in
its January 27, 2010, response to section D of the questionnaire,
except where noted below.
We excluded packing expenses from the denominators of the reported
G&A and interest expense ratios. In addition, we revised the numerator
of the interest expense ratio to exclude the interest income offset,
because Refmex did not demonstrate that this income was generated from
certain short-term interest-bearing assets. We applied the revised
ratios to Refmex' reported total cost of manufacturing to determine the
revised G&A and financial interest expenses. See Memorandum entitled
``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustment RHI-
Refmex S.A. de C.V.,'' dated March 3, 2010.
For the preliminary determination, we have relied upon the POI
weighted-average COP Refmex reported. However, depending on the extent
to which production costs changed throughout the cost reporting period,
we are considering whether it is more appropriate to use the
Department's alternative cost averaging methodology for the final
determination. Accordingly, we have requested product-specific
quarterly cost information from Refmex
[[Page 11521]]
for consideration prior to the final determination.
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP to the home market sales prices of the foreign like
product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine
whether the sale prices were below the COP. The sales prices were
exclusive of any applicable movement charges, direct and indirect
selling expenses, and packing expenses. For purposes of this
comparison, we used the COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of the 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 we determined that the below-cost sales were not made
in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the
respondent's sales of a given product during the POI were at prices
less than COP, we determine that such sales have been made in
``substantial quantities.'' See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act.
Further, we determine that the sales were made within an extended
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
because we examine below-cost sales occurring during the entire POI. In
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we compare prices to
the POI average costs to determine whether the prices permit recovery
of costs within a reasonable period of time.
In this case, we found that, for certain specific products, more
than 20 percent of Refmex' sales were at prices less than the COP and,
in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs
within a reasonable period of time. We, therefore, excluded these sales
and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices
We based NV for Refmex on packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to
unaffiliated customers in the home market. We made deductions from the
starting price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight and
warehousing expenses under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410(b), we made, where appropriate, circumstance-of-sale
adjustments for imputed credit expenses and technical service expenses.
We also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing
costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
Finally, we made a CEP offset pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). We calculated the CEP offset as the lesser
of the indirect selling expenses incurred on the home market sales or
the indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting price in
calculating CEP.
Refmex reported royalty expenses incurred on home market sales and
paid to an affiliate, Refractory Intellectual Property (REFIP) GmbH &
Co. KG., of Refmex' parent company, RHI AG. We have disallowed this
selling expense claim, as Refmex was unable to demonstrate that the
royalty payments made to its affiliate were at arm's length.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with
section 773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415 based on the exchange rates
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify
the information relied upon in making our final determination for
Refmex.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all
entries of bricks from Mexico that are entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this
notice in the Federal Register. We will also instruct CBP to require a
cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average
dumping margins, as indicated in the chart below. These suspension-of-
liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RHI-Refmex S.A. de C.V.............................. 54.73
All Others.......................................... 54.73
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All-Others Rate
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated ``All
Others'' rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the
estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters
and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de
minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776
of the Act. Refmex is the only respondent in this investigation for
which the Department calculated a company-specific rate. Therefore, for
purposes of determining the all-others rate and pursuant to section
735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the weighted-average dumping
margin calculated for Refmex, as referenced above. See, e.g., Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel
Sheet and Strip in Coils From Italy, 64 FR 30750, 30755 (June 8, 1999);
and Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper
from Indonesia, 72 FR 30753, 30757 (June 4, 2007), unchanged in Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free
Sheet Paper from Indonesia, 72 FR 60636 (October 25, 2007).
Disclosure
The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed
in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of
the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional
Measures
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement
is made by exporters, who account for a significant proportion of
exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by
the petitioner. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2),
require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final
determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional
measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.
On February 17, 2010, Refmex requested that in the event of an
affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the
Department postpone its final determination by 60 days. At the same
time, Refmex requested that the Department extend the application of
the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period to a six-month period.
In accordance
[[Page 11522]]
with section 735(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2), because:
(1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting
exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the
subject merchandise; and, (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist,
we are granting this request and are postponing the final determination
until no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in
the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will be extended
accordingly.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination. If the
Department's final determination is
affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days
after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our
final determination whether imports of bricks from Mexico are
materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the U.S.
industry (see section 735(b)(2) of the Act). Because we are postponing
the deadline for our final determination to 135 days from the date of
the publication of this preliminary determination, the ITC will make
its final determination no later than 45 days after our final
determination.
Public Comment
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the
Department no later than seven days after the date of the issuance of
the last verification report in this proceeding. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to
the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days
from the deadline date for the submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR
351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an
executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to
the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages
total, including footnotes. Further, we request that parties submitting
briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a copy of the
public version of such briefs on diskette. In accordance with section
774 of the Act, the Department will hold a public hearing, if timely
requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a
hearing is requested by an interested party. See also 19 CFR
351.310(d). If a timely request for a hearing is made in this
investigation, we intend to hold the hearing two days after the
rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and
in a room to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone, the
date, time, and location of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled
date.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate
in a hearing 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 publication of this notice.
Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to
be discussed. At the hearing, oral presentations will be limited to
issues raised in the briefs.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 3, 2010.
Carole A. Showers,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-5369 Filed 3-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S