Skip to Content

Notice

Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Polyvinyl Alcohol From the Republic of Korea

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble

AGENCY:

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION:

Notice of preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value.

SUMMARY:

We preliminarily determine that polyvinyl alcohol from the Republic of Korea is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. We will make our final determination not later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

March 20, 2003.

Start Further Info

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Irina Itkin, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0656.

Preliminary Determination

The Department has conducted this antidumping investigation in accordance with section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We preliminarily determine that polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) is being sold, or is likely to be sold, in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733 of the Act. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice.

Case History

Since the initiation of this investigation (Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Polyvinyl Alcohol from Germany, Japan, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore, 67 FR 61591 (Oct. 1, 2002)) (Initiation Notice), the following events have occurred.

On October 11, 2002, the petitioners [1] and one Korean exporter of PVA, DC Chemical Company, Ltd. (DC CHEM), submitted comments on the model-matching criteria to be used by the Department. Two interested parties in the companion case on PVA from Japan, Kuraray Co., Ltd. (Kuraray) and Marubeni Specialty Chemicals, Inc. (Marubeni), also filed comments on the model-matching criteria to be used by the Department. On October 15, 2002, Marubeni submitted an amendment to its model-matching comments. On December 13, 2002, the petitioners and another Japanese exporter, the Nippon Synthetic Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (Nippon Gohsei), submitted additional model-matching comments.[2]

On October 21, 2002, the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that imports of PVA from Korea are materially injuring the United States industry. See ITC Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1014-1018 (Publication No. 3553, Polyvinyl Alcohol from Germany, Japan, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore, 67 FR 65597 (Oct. 25, 2002)).

On October 22, 2002, we selected DC CHEM, the only known producer/exporter of PVA from Korea, as the mandatory respondent in this proceeding. For further discussion, see the memorandum to Louis Apple, Director, Office 2, from the Team entitled “Respondent Selection,” dated October 22, 2002. We also issued the antidumping questionnaire to DC CHEM on October 22, 2002.

During the period November 2002 through February 2003, we received responses to the Department's original and supplemental questionnaires.

On January 21, 2003, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioners made a timely request to postpone the preliminary determination for 30 days. We granted this request and, on January 30, 2003, postponed the preliminary Start Printed Page 13682determination until no later than March 14, 2003. See Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea, 68 FR 4763 (Jan. 30, 2003).

In March 2003, as provided in section 782(i)(3)(a) of the Act, we verified the constructed export price (CEP) sales data reported by DC CHEM. We used standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant sales and financial records. Because this verification was conducted immediately prior to the preliminary determination, we have had insufficient time to incorporate any verification findings into this determination. Therefore, we will consider any such findings in our final determination.

On March 12, 2003, DC CHEM requested that the Department revise the scope to exclude certain additional copolymers. Because there was insufficient time to properly consider DC CHEM's exclusion request, we will address it in the final determination.

Postponement of Final Determination

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.

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on February 12, 2003, DC CHEM requested that the Department postpone its final determination until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register. DC CHEM also included a request to extend the provisional measures to not more than six months. Accordingly, since we have made an affirmative preliminary determination and no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are granting DC CHEM's request and are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (i.e., September 2002).

Scope Comments

In accordance with the preamble to our regulations (see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), 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. See the Initiation Notice, 67 FR at 61591. Although no comments on the scope of the investigation were received in this proceeding, scope comments were received in the companion Japanese case. Because these comments relate to PVA in general, we find that they are applicable to this proceeding. Accordingly, we have placed on the record of this proceeding all public scope comments as well as all public versions of the proprietary scope documents filed in the companion Japanese case, and, for the reasons specified in that preliminary determination, we have modified the scope of this investigation based on these comments. See the “Scope Comments” section of the Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol from Japan, 68 FR 8203, 8204-05 (Feb. 20, 2003).

Scope of Investigation

The merchandise covered by this investigation is PVA. This product consists of all PVA hydrolyzed in excess of 80 percent, whether or not mixed or diluted with commercial levels of defoamer or boric acid, except as noted below.

The following products are specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

(1) PVA in fiber form.

(2) PVA with hydrolysis less than 83 mole percent and certified not for use in the production of textiles.

(3) PVA with hydrolysis greater than 85 percent and viscosity greater than or equal to 90 cps.

(4) PVA with a hydrolysis greater than 85 percent, viscosity greater than or equal to 80 cps but less than 90 cps, certified for use in an ink jet application.

(5) PVA for use in the manufacture of an excipient or as an excipient in the manufacture of film coating systems which are components of a drug or dietary supplement, and accompanied by an end-use certification.

(6) PVA covalently bonded with cationic monomer uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration equal to or greater than one mole percent.

(7) PVA covalently bonded with carboxylic acid uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration equal to or greater than two mole percent, certified for use in a paper application.

(8) PVA covalently bonded with thiol uniformly present on all polymer chains, certified for use in emulsion polymerization of non-vinyl acetic material.

(9) PVA covalently bonded with paraffin uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration equal to or greater than one mole percent.

(10) PVA covalently bonded with silan uniformly present on all polymer chains certified for use in paper coating applications.

(11) PVA covalently bonded with sulfonic acid uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration level equal to or greater than one mole percent.

(12) PVA covalently bonded with acetoacetylate uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration level equal to or greater than one mole percent.

(13) PVA covalently bonded with polyethylene oxide uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration level equal to or greater than one mole percent.

(14) PVA covalently bonded with quaternary amine uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration level equal to or greater than one mole percent.

The merchandise under investigation is currently classifiable under subheading 3905.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of PVA from Korea to the United States were made at LTFV, we compared the CEP to the normal value (NV), as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we compared POI weighted-average CEPs to weighted-average NVs. Start Printed Page 13683

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced and sold by DC CHEM in the home market during the POI that fit the description in the “Scope of Investigation” section of this notice to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we compared POI weighted-average CEPs to POI weighted-average NVs. 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 most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade.

In October 2002, DC CHEM, Kuraray, Marubeni, and the petitioners submitted comments on the model-matching criteria to be used by the Department.[3] Based on these comments, we proposed to match products sold in the United States to products sold in the home market in the ordinary course of trade that were identical with respect to the following hierarchy of characteristics: molecular structure, hydrolysis, viscosity, degree of modification, particle size, tackifier, defoamer, ash, color, volatiles, and visual impurities. We invited interested parties to submit additional comments on these criteria prior to the preliminary determination. In December, the petitioners and Nippon Gohsei submitted additional model-matching comments.[4]

After analyzing these comments, we have reconsidered the model-matching hierarchy and revised it as follows: (1) We added as the most important criterion whether the product is a homo-or a co-polymer; (2) we placed hydrolysis and viscosity before molecular structure (i.e., the type of copolymer); and (3) we allowed the reporting of hydrolysis, viscosity, and degree of modification in ranges.[5] All other characteristics remain the same. For further discussion, see the memorandum entitled “Concurrence Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Investigation of Polyvinyl Alcohol from Korea,” dated March 14, 2003, (Concurrence Memo), on file in room B-099 of the Department's Central Records Unit.

Constructed Export Price

In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated the CEP for those sales where the merchandise was sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter. In this case, we are treating all of DC CHEM's U.S. sales as CEP sales because they were made in the United States by DC CHEM's U.S. affiliate on behalf of DC CHEM, within the meaning of section 772(b) of the Act.

We based the CEP on the packed delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We added duty drawback received on imported materials, where applicable, pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made adjustments for billing errors and discounts. We also made deductions for movement expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duties (including U.S. duties, harbor maintenance fees, and merchandise processing fees), U.S. customs brokerage charges, U.S. inland freight expenses (i.e., freight from port to warehouse and freight from warehouse to the customer), and U.S. warehousing expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States related to sales to an unaffiliated purchaser, including direct selling expenses (imputed credit costs and other direct selling expenses), and indirect selling expenses (including U.S. inventory carrying costs and other indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States).

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at the CEP. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using the expenses incurred by DC CHEM and its affiliates on their sales of the subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign like product in the home market and the profit associated with those sales.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

In order 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 the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because the respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable for the respondent.

B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test

DC CHEM reported sales of the foreign like product to affiliated end-users. To test whether these sales to affiliated customers were made at arm's length, we compared the prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Where the price to the affiliated party was, on average, 99.5 percent or more of the price to unaffiliated parties, we determined that sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). Based on this analysis, we found that 100 percent of DC CHEM's sales to affiliates in the home market were made at arm's length.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

Based on our analysis of an allegation contained in the petition, we found that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of PVA in the home market were made at prices below their cost of production (COP). Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we initiated a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation to determine whether sales were made at prices below their respective COPs. See Initiation Notice, 67 at FR 61594.

1. Calculation of COP

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), including interest expenses. See the “Test of Home Market Sales Prices” section below for treatment of home market selling expenses. We relied on Start Printed Page 13684the COP data submitted by DC CHEM, except as noted below:

  • We revised the calculation of the G&A expense ratio to: (1) Include losses from the impairment of goodwill, losses on the valuation of inventories, donations, losses on the disposal of non-current assets, losses on construction, and losses on the cancellation of contracts; (2) exclude the cost offsets taken for equity gains on investments, duty drawback, rental income of a training institute, and other non-operating income; and (3) exclude gains and losses from foreign currency transactions and translation; and
  • We revised the financial expense ratio to only include the amounts for gains and losses on foreign currency exchange transactions and translation from the 2001 consolidated financial statements.

For further discussion, see the memorandum from James Balog to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Determination,” dated March 14, 2003.

For this preliminary determination, we have implemented a change in practice regarding the treatment of foreign exchange gains and losses. The Department's previous practice was to have respondents identify the source of all foreign exchange gains and losses (e.g., debt, accounts receivable, accounts payable, cash deposits) at both a consolidated and unconsolidated corporate level. At the consolidated level, the current portion of foreign exchange gains and losses generated by debt or cash deposits were included in the interest expense rate computation. At the unconsolidated producer level, foreign exchange gains and losses on accounts payable were either included in the G&A rate computation, or under certain circumstances, in the cost of manufacturing. Gains and losses on accounts receivable at both the consolidated and unconsolidated producer levels were excluded from the COP and CV calculations.

Instead of splitting apart the foreign exchange gains and losses as reported in an entity's financial statements, we will normally include in the interest expense computation all foreign exchange gains and losses. In doing so, we will no longer include a portion of foreign exchange gains and losses from two different financial statements (i.e., consolidated and unconsolidated producer). Instead, we will only include the foreign exchange gains and losses reported in the financial statement of the same entity used to compute each respondent's net interest expense rate. This approach recognizes that the key measure is not necessarily what generated the exchange gain or loss, but rather how well the entity as a whole was able to manage its foreign currency exposure in any one currency. As such, for these preliminary results, we included all foreign exchange gains or losses in the interest expense rate computation. We note that there may be unusual circumstances in certain cases which may cause the Department to deviate from this general practice. We will address exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

As this is a change in practice, we invite the parties to the proceeding to comment on this issue.

2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices

On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether the sale prices were below the COP. The prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than their COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such sales were made: (1) Within an extended period of time in substantial quantities; and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.

3. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POI are at prices less than the COP, we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales represent “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales were made at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act.

We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent of DC CHEM's home market 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, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

D. Level of Trade

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i), to the extent practicable, the Department will determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.; see also 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 (Nov. 19, 1997) (Plate from South Africa). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e., the “chain of distribution”),[6] including selling functions, class of customer (“customer category”), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either home market or third country prices [7]  ), we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, Court Nos. 00-1058,-1060 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

When the Department is unable to find sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it Start Printed Page 13685practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if an NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affected price comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732.

We obtained information from DC CHEM regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported home market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by DC CHEM and its affiliates for each channel of distribution. Regarding the home market, DC CHEM reported home market sales through only one channel of distribution: direct sales to end-users and distributors. We examined the chain of distribution and the selling activities associated with sales reported by DC CHEM to each of these customer categories. The information on the record demonstrates that DC CHEM performs the same selling functions across customer categories. See DC CHEM's response to the Department's questionnaire, dated December 9, 2001, at page B-22. Based on our analysis of this information, we find that only one LOT exists in the home market.[8]

In the U.S. market, DC CHEM reported CEP sales through three channels of distribution. DC CHEM also reported that it performed the same selling functions for all U.S. sales regardless of distribution channel. Because the selling functions performed for sales through each channel of distribution were essentially the same, a finding of separate LOTs is not warranted.[9] Therefore, we determine that DC CHEM made sales through only one LOT in the U.S. market.

In order to determine whether NV was established at an LOT which constituted a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP, we compared the selling functions performed for home market sales with those performed with respect to the CEP transaction, which excludes economic activities occurring in the United States. We found that DC CHEM performed essentially the same marketing functions when selling in both the home market and the United States. Therefore, we determine that these sales are at the same LOT and no LOT adjustment is warranted. Because we find that no difference in the LOT exists between markets, we have not granted a CEP offset to DC CHEM. For further discussion, see the Concurrence Memorandum.

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

We calculated NV based on delivered prices to unaffiliated customers or prices to affiliated customers that we determined to be at arm's-length. In accordance with our practice, for DC CHEM's local export sales, we also made an addition to home market price for duty drawback. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar From Korea 67 FR 3149, 3151 (Jan. 23, 2002). We made deductions for rebates, where appropriate. We also made deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses, including inland freight (plant to distribution warehouse and plant/warehouse to customer) and warehousing 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, we also made deductions for home market imputed credit expenses and commissions. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset home market commissions by the lesser of the commission amount or the amount of U.S. indirect selling expenses because DC CHEM incurred commissions only in the home market.

Furthermore, we made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act 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) of the Act, we will verify all information relied upon in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct the Customs Service to require a cash deposit or the posting of bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the CEP, 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:

Exporter/manufacturerWeighted-average margin percentage
DC Chemical Company, Ltd.8.06
All Others8.06

Disclosure

The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our determination. If our final antidumping determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. The deadline for that ITC determination would be the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the date of our final determination.

Public Comment

Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than seven days after the date of the final verification report issued in this proceeding. Rebuttal briefs must be filed five days from the deadline date for case briefs. 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. See 19 CFR 351.309.

Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a public hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by any interested party. If a request for a hearing is made Start Printed Page 13686in this investigation, the hearing will tentatively 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. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request within 10 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310.

We will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(1) of the Act.

This determination is published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i) of the Act.

Start Signature

Dated: March 14, 2003.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

End Signature End Further Info End Preamble

Footnotes

1.  The petitioners in this investigation are Celanese Chemicals Ltd. and E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. (collectively, “the petitioners”).

Back to Citation

2.  Because the comments submitted by the parties in the companion investigation of PVA from Japan relate to this investigation, we placed them on the record of this case.

Back to Citation

3.  As noted in the “Case History” section of this notice, Kuraray and Marubeni submitted their comments for the record of the companion case on PVA from Japan. Because these comments are relevant in this proceeding, we have placed them on the record here as well.

Back to Citation

4.  These comments were only placed on the record for the companion case on PVA from Japan. Because they are relevant to this proceeding, we have placed them on the record here as well.

Back to Citation

5.  In the companion case of PVA from Japan, we also revised the particle size field to include PVA in standard, fine, pellet and liquid forms. Because DC CHEM sold PVA in only the two original size classifications, standard and fine, this revision is not relevant to this proceeding.

Back to Citation

6.  The marketing process in the United States and comparison markets begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final user or consumer. The chain of distribution between the two may have many or few links, and the respondent's sales occur somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered the narrative responses of the respondent to properly determine where in the chain of distribution the sale appears to occur.

Back to Citation

7.  Where NV is based on constructed value (CV), we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit for CV, where possible.

Back to Citation

8.  Because DC CHEM claimed business proprietary treatment for this information, we are unable to discuss it further here. For a description of the selling functions in question, see the Concurrence Memorandum.

Back to Citation

9.  As noted above, because DC CHEM claimed business proprietary treatment for this information, we are unable to discuss it further here. For a description of these selling functions, see the Concurrence Memorandum.

Back to Citation

[FR Doc. 03-6736 Filed 3-19-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-05-P