Accordingto section 353.25 of the department’s regulations, the data provided by CEMEXand CDC was verified using standard verification procedures, including on-siteinspection of the manufacturer’s facilities, the inspection of relevant salesand financial archives, and selection of original documents with pertinentinformation. The Committee of producers of Gray Portland Cement and theNational Cement Company of California in the quality of petitioners, and CEMEXand CDC submitted case briefs on November 4, 1996, and refutation preparationson November 27, 1996.
A public hearing was held on December 11, 1996 (Federal register , 2003) Inthe Final Results of the Sixth Review, the Department determined that CEMEX’shome market sales of Type V cement sold as Type II and Type V cement producedat the Hermosillo plants were outside “the ordinary course of trade” and couldnot be used as the basis for calculating normal value (Federal Register, 1997)Withrespect to Type II cement, the Department found the following facts:1. volume of Type II local marketsales was very small in comparison with sales of other cement kinds.2. number and type of customers acquiringType II cement was significantly dissimilar from other cement categories.3. Type II is a special cement sold toan already specific type of market.4. The shipping distances and freightcosts of the Type II cement that was vended in the local market was meaningfullysuperior than sales of other cement types, and CEMEX was absorbing those costs5.
CEMEX’s profit on Type II sales wasminor in contrast to its profits on all other cement types.The department also found thatCEMEX did not sell type II cement in Mexico until it began production forexport in the mid-eighties, even though slight internal demand existed prior tothat period. Moreover, sales of type II cement revealed a promotional valuethat was not evidenced in CEMEX’s ordinary sales of cement; although sales of typeV cement were less uncommon than sales of type II, type V cement was separated the ordinary course of trade basedon the same factors mentioned concerning type II cement.Other issue was that CEMEX’s home-basedmarket shipping preparations for Type II cement were uncommon compared to itsshipments of other types of cement. During the review, CEMEX shipped Type IIcement larger distances and absorbed the freight expense. Prior to theantidumping order, CEMEX produced Type II cement at eleven plants throughoutMexico.
In direct response to the antidumping order, however, petitioners claimedthat CEMEX radically altered its production and distribution arrangements forType II cement by consolidating production at Hermosillo even though homemarket demand for this cement type is centered in the Mexico City area, provinglike this that CEMEX’s claim that shipping terms were identical for all cementtypes was false. Petitioners also pointed out that CEMEX made all of its long-distancesales of Type II Cement C.I.F, but a significant number of CEMEX’s plants soldType I cement on a F.O.B.
basis.
