[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 88 (Friday, May 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26247-26252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11122]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-821-819]
Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to timely requests, the Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on magnesium metal from the Russian Federation
for the period of review (POR) April 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010.
The review covers two respondents, PSC VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation
(AVISMA) and Solikamsk Magnesium Works (SMW).
[[Page 26248]]
The Department preliminarily determines that AVISMA did not make
sales to the United States at less than normal value. If these
preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess no antidumping duties on entries by AVISMA
during the POR. SMW reported that it had no shipments to the United
States during the POR. The preliminary results are listed below in the
section titled ``Preliminary Results of Review.''
DATES: Effective Date: May 6, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hermes Pinilla or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3477 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published the antidumping duty order on magnesium
metal from the Russian Federation on April 15, 2005. See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order: Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation, 70
FR 19930 (April 15, 2005). On April 1, 2010, the Department published
in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the order on magnesium metal from the Russian
Federation. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review,
75 FR 16426 (April 1, 2010). On April 30, 2010, U.S. Magnesium
Corporation LLC, the petitioner in this proceeding, requested that the
Department conduct an administrative review with respect to AVISMA and
SMW, both Russian Federation producers of the subject merchandise. On
May 28, 2010, the Department published a notice of initiation of an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on magnesium metal
from the Russian Federation for the period April 1, 2009, through March
31, 2010. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 29976 (May 28, 2010).
We have extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this
administrative review from December 31, 2010, to April 30, 2011.\1\ See
Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Extension of Time Limit
for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75
FR 78968 (December 17, 2010), and Magnesium Metal From the Russian
Federation: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 12938 (March 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Because April 30, 2011 falls on a Saturday, it is the
Department's practice to issue a determination the next business day
when the statutory deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday, or
any other day when the Department is closed. See Notice of
Clarification: Application of ``Next Business Day'' Rule for
Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of
1930, as Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). Accordingly, the
deadline for completion of the preliminary results is May 2, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are conducting this review in accordance with section 751 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of the Order \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On March 10, 2011, the Department revoked the order,
effective April 15, 2010. See Magnesium Metal From the Russian
Federation: Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order Pursuant to Five-
Year Sunset Review, 76 FR 13128 (March 10, 2011). This review covers
merchandise that entered the United States for consumption during
the POR which met the description of the scope of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The merchandise covered by the order is magnesium metal (also
referred to as magnesium), which includes primary and secondary pure
and alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material
source, form, shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing
by weight primarily the element magnesium. Primary magnesium is
produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary
magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium
metal. The magnesium covered by the order includes blends of primary
and secondary magnesium.
The subject merchandise includes the following pure and alloy
magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium,
including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs,
rounds, billets, and other shapes, and magnesium ground, chipped,
crushed, or machined into raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder,
briquettes, and other shapes: (1) Products that contain at least 99.95
percent magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as ``ultra-pure''
magnesium); (2) products that contain less than 99.95 percent but not
less than 99.8 percent magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as
``pure'' magnesium); and (3) chemical combinations of magnesium and
other material(s) in which the magnesium content is 50 percent or
greater, but less that 99.8 percent, by weight, whether or not
conforming to an ``ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy.''
The scope of the order excludes: (1) Magnesium that is in liquid or
molten form; and (2) mixtures containing 90 percent or less magnesium
in granular or powder form by weight and one or more of certain non-
magnesium granular materials to make magnesium-based reagent mixtures,
including lime, calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide,
calcium carbonate, carbon, slag coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline
syenite, feldspar, alumina (Al203), calcium aluminate, soda ash,
hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal,
cryolite, silica/fly ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys,
dolomite lime, and colemanite.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This second exclusion for magnesium-based reagent mixtures
is based on the exclusion for reagent mixtures in the 2001
investigations of magnesium from the People's Republic of China,
Israel, and the Russian Federation. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium in
Granular Form From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 49345
(September 27, 2001), Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From Israel, 66 FR 49349 (September
27, 2001), and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less
Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation, 66 FR
49347 (September 27, 2001). These mixtures are not magnesium alloys,
because they are not chemically combined in liquid form and cast
into the same ingot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable
under items 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.30.00, and 8104.90.00 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the
HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the merchandise covered by the order is
dispositive. See id.
SMW
On June 8, 2010, SMW submitted a letter indicating that it made no
sales of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
We have not received any comments on SMW's submission. We examined
SMW's claim of no shipments by issuing a ``No Shipments Inquiry'' to
CBP and by reviewing electronic CBP data. See Memorandum to the File
entitled ``Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation--Request for
U.S. Entry Documents,'' dated October 27, 2010. Based on our review of
the electronic CBP data, we found that there were entries of subject
merchandise produced by SMW to the United States during the POR. On
November 29, 2010, we requested clarification from SMW on the entries
we found in the electronic CBP data. On December 8, 2010, SMW filed a
response indicating that the shipments in question were made by a third
party which resold the subject
[[Page 26249]]
merchandise produced by SMW to the United States without the specific
knowledge of SMW. Thus, according to SMW, it had no knowledge of or
involvement in the importation of magnesium metal into the United
States during the POR. See SMW's response to the Department's inquiry
dated December 8, 2010. Based on the information SMW provided on the
record, we find that SMW did not have knowledge of exports or
involvement in imports of magnesium metal into the United States during
the POR. Thus, we did not request SMW to report such sales to the
Department for purposes of calculating a dumping margin in this
administrative review.
Affiliated-Party Sales
Based on information on the record, we preliminarily determined
that AVISMA is affiliated with one of its home-market customers. See
memorandum entitled ``Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation:
Affiliation Analysis'' dated March 30, 2011. As a result, we requested
that AVISMA respond to our June 7, 2010, questionnaire concerning sales
of the foreign like product by AVISMA's home-market customer to its
unaffiliated home-market customers. See the Department's letter to
AVISMA dated March 31, 2011. On April 14, 2011, we received a response
from AVISMA indicating that the home-market customer in question
consumed all of the magnesium metal it purchased from AVISMA during the
POR. Thus, according to AVISMA, it does not have any downstream sales
to report to the Department. See AVISMA's response to the Department's
request for affiliated-party sales dated April 14, 2011. Based on this
information, we preliminarily find that no further action is required
with respect to AVISMA's affiliated-party sales regarding the home-
market customer in question. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination:
Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation, 69 FR 59197, 59200
(October 4, 2004), unchanged in Magnesium Metal from the Russian
Federation: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 70 FR 9041 (February 24, 2005).
Constructed Export Price
AVISMA identified all of its sales to the United States as
constructed export price (CEP) sales because the U.S. sales were made
on behalf of AVISMA by AVISMA's U.S. affiliate, VSMPO-Tirus, U.S., Inc.
(Tirus US), to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. AVISMA and
Tirus US are affiliated because Tirus US is a wholly owned subsidiary
of AVISMA. See section 771(33)(E) of the Act. U.S. sales to the first
unaffiliated party were made in the United States by the U.S.
affiliate, thus satisfying the legal requirements for considering these
transactions to be CEP sales. See section 772(b) of the Act.
We calculated CEP based on the packed, C.I.F. price to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)
of the Act, we made deductions from price for movement expenses and
discounts, where appropriate. More specifically, we deducted early-
payment discounts, expenses for Russian railway freight from plant to
port, freight insurance, Russian brokerage, handling and port charges,
international freight and marine insurance, U.S. customs duties, U.S.
brokerage, handling, and port charges, U.S. warehousing, and U.S.
inland freight.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted direct
selling expenses and indirect selling expenses related to commercial
activity in the United States. See also Statement of Administrative
Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No.
103-316, Vol. 1 (1994) at 823-824. Pursuant to sections 772(d)(3) and
772(f) of the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP profit allocated to
expenses deducted under section 772(d)(1) of the Act. In accordance
with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on the total
revenues realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets, less all
expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to
expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity based on the
ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and
home markets. See AVISMA Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum dated
May 2, 2011 (Preliminary Analysis Memo).
Normal Value
Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home-market and
U.S. sales and absent any information that a particular market
situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper comparison,
we determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold by AVISMA
in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison
with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States under
section 773(a) of the Act. AVISMA's quantity of sales in its home
market was greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S. market.
Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we
considered basing normal value on the prices at which the foreign like
product was first sold for consumption in the exporting country in the
usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to
the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the CEP sales.
In accordance with section 771(16)(A) of the Act, we considered all
products produced by AVISMA that are covered by the description in the
``Scope of the Order'' section, above, and that were sold in the home
market during the POR to be foreign like products for purposes of
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In
accordance with sections 771(16)(B) and (C) of the Act, where there
were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to
U.S. sales, we considered comparing U.S. sales to the most similar
foreign like product on the basis of the product characteristics we
determined to be the most appropriate for purposes of matching
products.
Cost of Production Analysis
We disregarded below-cost sales in accordance with section 773(b)
of the Act in the last completed review with respect to AVISMA in which
it participated as of the date of initiation of this review. See
Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 52642, 52643 (September
10, 2008). Therefore, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the
determination of normal value in this review may have been made at
prices below the cost of production (COP) as provided by section
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1)
of the Act, we conducted a COP investigation of sales by AVISMA in the
home market.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a
weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product plus amounts for home-market
selling, general and administrative expenses, interest expense, and
packing expenses.
During the POR, AVISMA used two different accounting methodologies
in its normal books and records to determine the costs of raw
magnesium. AVISMA treated raw magnesium as a by-product in its normal
books and records during the period April 1 through December 31, 2009.
Raw magnesium and chlorine gas are produced jointly during the third
major processing step, the electrolysis stage (i.e., the split-off
point), during which
[[Page 26250]]
both products become identifiable physically. AVISMA's calculation of
the by-product value for raw magnesium started with the total sales
value of finished goods produced. It reduced this amount by the
budgeted profit, selling expenses, and post-split-off costs. Because
AVISMA considers the remaining amount to represent the total net
realizable value (NRV) of raw magnesium, it used this value as the
offset for raw magnesium in calculating a total NRV for chlorine gas
for its response to our questionnaire.
On January 1, 2010, AVISMA revised its accounting methodology in
its normal books and records and began to treat chlorine gas as a by-
product of raw magnesium. AVISMA's calculation of the by-product value
for chlorine gas was based on the budgeted cost of production of
AVISMA's new gasification plant. AVISMA valued chlorine gas at the
estimated cost of liquid chlorine plus estimated transportation and
gasification costs at its new facility. AVISMA then deducted the total
estimated value of chlorine gas from the total joint costs and assigned
the remaining joint costs to raw magnesium.
For reporting purposes in this administrative review, AVISMA
departed from its normal books and records and relied instead on the
Department's calculation methodology in Magnesium Metal From the
Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 26922 (May 13, 2010) (Preliminary Results
08-09 Review). See also Memorandum entitled ``Cost of Production and
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--
PSC VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation and VSMPO--Tirus US Inc.''' dated May 7,
2010 (Preliminary Results 08-09 Review Cost Memo); the Department
followed the same methodology in Magnesium Metal From the Russian
Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75
FR 56989 (September 17, 2010) (Final Results 08-09 Review).
As such, AVISMA considered chlorine gas and market-quality raw
magnesium produced jointly at the split-off point as co-products. For
the purpose of allocating the split-off-point joint costs to the co-
products, AVISMA used the NRV of chlorine gas as calculated by the
Department in the Final Results 08-09 Review. See Attachment 5 of the
Preliminary Results 08-09 Review Cost Memo.
In accordance with section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act, we have
examined both accounting methodologies employed by AVISMA in its normal
books and records during the POR. We agree with AVISMA that for
purposes of this review it is proper to depart from AVISMA's normal
books and records for the period April 1 through December 31, 2009. See
Memorandum entitled ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--PSC VMPSO-AVIMSA
Corporation and VSMPO--Tirus, U.S. Inc.,'' dated May 2, 2011
(Preliminary Results 09-10 Review Cost Memo). We have accepted AVISMA's
reported costs for the period April 1 through December 31, 2009, for
the sake of maintaining consistency with the prior segments of this
proceeding. In the previous review, we also deviated from AVISMA's
normal books and records (which considered raw magnesium to be a by-
product of the joint process) and used the same co-product approach in
allocating joint costs to raw magnesium and chlorine gas as reported by
AVISMA for the first nine months of the instant POR (April 1 through
December 31, 2009). See, e.g., Preliminary Results 08-09 Review, 75 FR
at 26925 (unchanged in Final Results 08-09 Review).
As explained in the Preliminary Results 09-10 Review Cost Memo, we
find AVISMA's new methodology to be a reasonable reflection of the
costs associated with the production of the subject merchandise.
Therefore, for these preliminary results, we have recalculated AVISMA's
costs of raw magnesium and chlorine gas for the period January 1
through March 31, 2010, to reflect AVISMA's normal books and records as
instructed by section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act.
We have calculated the weighted-average COP using the costs of the
final products for the period April 1 through December 31, 2009, and
the costs of the final products for the period January 1 through March
31, 2010, in order to determine the weighted-average per-unit costs of
the merchandise under consideration. See Preliminary Results 09-10
Review Cost Memo.
We have not considered the comments filed by the petitioner on
April 20, 2011, in our analysis of AVISMA's reported costs for these
preliminary results because of the lack of time between the date of the
petitioner's filing and the statutory deadline for completion of the
preliminary results. With less than two weeks between the submission of
the comments and the fully extended statutory deadline for issuing
these preliminary results, we could not ensure full participation by
all parties in the process of determining whether sufficient
information is on the record to apply the proposed analysis. We will
consider the petitioner's comments carefully for the final results of
this review and we invite comments from the parties concerning the
implications of applying the petitioner's proposed analysis for the
purposes of this review (e.g., what to use for constructed value in the
event we must rely on one of the alternative methods described in
section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act). Such comments should be filed in
accordance with the schedule for filing case briefs as discussed in the
``Disclosure and Public Comment'' section below.
We also revised AVISMA's reported net interest expense ratio to
exclude that portion of the reported interest income offset related to
loans receivable. AVISMA's auditor could not determine that the
carrying value of AVISMA's loans receivable was reasonable. As such, we
cannot determine whether the interest income calculated by AVISMA based
on the value of the loans receivable is a reasonable reflection of the
actual interest received. Therefore, we have disallowed the offset for
this interest income because we cannot conclude that the value of the
reported interest income offset related to loans receivable is
reasonable. See id.
After calculating the COP and in accordance with section 773(b)(1)
of the Act, we tested whether home market sales of the foreign like
product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of
time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared
model-specific COPs to the reported home market prices less any
applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates. Pursuant to
section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 percent of a
respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP,
we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because the
below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an
extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of a respondent's
sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we disregard
the below-cost sales because they were made in substantial quantities
within an extended period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C) of the Act and because, based on comparisons of prices to weighted-
average COPs for the POR, such sales were at prices which would not
permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on this test, we
[[Page 26251]]
disregarded certain home market sales of magnesium metal because such
sales did not pass the cost test. See Preliminary Analysis Memo.
Level of Trade
In the U.S. market, AVISMA made CEP sales. In the case of CEP
sales, we identified the level of trade based on the price after the
deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act.
Although the starting price for CEP sales was based on sales made by
the affiliated reseller to unaffiliated customers through two channels
of distribution, sales to end-users and distributors, AVISMA reported
similar selling activities associated with all sales to the affiliated
reseller (i.e., at the CEP level of trade).
AVISMA reported one channel of distribution in the home market,
sales to end-users. We found that this channel of distribution
constitutes a single level of trade in the home market. To determine
whether home market sales were made at a different level of trade than
U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the
unaffiliated customer. We found that there were significant differences
between the selling activities associated with the CEP level of trade
and those associated with the home market level of trade and, thus, we
found the CEP level of trade to be different from the home market level
of trade. Further, we found the CEP level of trade to be at a less
advanced stage of distribution than the home market level of trade.
Because AVISMA reported no home market levels of trade that were
equivalent to the CEP level of trade and because we determined that the
CEP level of trade was at a less advanced stage than the single home
market level of trade, we were unable to determine a level-of-trade
adjustment based on the respondent's home market sales of the foreign
like product. Furthermore, we have no other information that provides
an appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For
AVISMA's CEP sales, we made a CEP-offset adjustment in accordance with
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. For a description of our level-of-
trade analysis for these preliminary results, see Preliminary Analysis
Memo.
Currency Conversion
For purposes of the preliminary results and in accordance with
section 773A of the Act, we made currency conversions based on the
official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. See 19 CFR 351.415.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margins on magnesium metal from the
Russian Federation exist for the period April 1, 2009, through March
31, 2010:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSC VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation............................... 0.00
Solikamsk Magnesium Works.................................. *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has an
individual rate from the last segment of the proceeding in which the
firm had shipments or sales.
Disclosure and Public Comment
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to any
party to the proceeding the calculations performed in connection with
these preliminary results within five days after the date of
publication of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment
on the preliminary results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.309(c), case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to
the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Interested parties
may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, which must be
limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later
than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR
351.309(d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this
review are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of
the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic
version included. A list of authorities used and an executive summary
of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This
summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310, we will hold a public hearing,
if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If requested, a hearing
will be held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal
briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be
determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and
location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. Interested
parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within
30 days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR
351.310(c). Requests should contain (1) the party's name, address, and
telephone number, (2) the number of participants, and (3) a list of the
issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an
affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case
brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in
that party's rebuttal brief. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate
for AVISMA reflecting these preliminary results of review.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced by AVISMA or SMW for which AVISMA
or SMW did not know their merchandise was destined for the United
States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed
entries of merchandise produced by AVISMA or SMW at the all-others rate
if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the
transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
The Department intends to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15
days after the publication of the final results of review.
Cash-Deposit Requirements
Because we revoked the order effective April 15, 2010, no cash
deposits for estimated antidumping duties are required.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
[[Page 26252]]
occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
The preliminary results of this administrative review and this
notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)
and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 2, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-11122 Filed 5-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P