to section 353.25 of the department’s regulations, the data provided by CEMEX
and CDC was verified using standard verification procedures, including on-site
inspection of the manufacturer’s facilities, the inspection of relevant sales
and financial archives, and selection of original documents with pertinent
information. The Committee of producers of Gray Portland Cement and the
National Cement Company of California in the quality of petitioners, and CEMEX
and CDC submitted case briefs on November 4, 1996, and refutation preparations
on November 27, 1996. A public hearing was held on December 11, 1996 (Federal
register , 2003)
the Final Results of the Sixth Review, the Department determined that CEMEX’s
home market sales of Type V cement sold as Type II and Type V cement produced
at the Hermosillo plants were outside “the ordinary course of trade” and could
not be used as the basis for calculating normal value (Federal Register, 1997)
respect to Type II cement, the Department found the following facts:
1. volume of Type II local market
sales was very small in comparison with sales of other cement kinds.
2. number and type of customers acquiring
Type II cement was significantly dissimilar from other cement categories.
3. Type II is a special cement sold to
an already specific type of market.
4. The shipping distances and freight
costs of the Type II cement that was vended in the local market was meaningfully
superior than sales of other cement types, and CEMEX was absorbing those costs
5. CEMEX’s profit on Type II sales was
minor in contrast to its profits on all other cement types.
The department also found that
CEMEX did not sell type II cement in Mexico until it began production for
export in the mid-eighties, even though slight internal demand existed prior to
that period. Moreover, sales of type II cement revealed a promotional value
that was not evidenced in CEMEX’s ordinary sales of cement; although sales of type
V cement were less uncommon than sales of type II, type V cement was separated the ordinary course of trade based
on the same factors mentioned concerning type II cement.
Other issue was that CEMEX’s home-based
market shipping preparations for Type II cement were uncommon compared to its
shipments of other types of cement. During the review, CEMEX shipped Type II
cement larger distances and absorbed the freight expense. Prior to the
antidumping order, CEMEX produced Type II cement at eleven plants throughout
Mexico. In direct response to the antidumping order, however, petitioners claimed
that CEMEX radically altered its production and distribution arrangements for
Type II cement by consolidating production at Hermosillo even though home
market demand for this cement type is centered in the Mexico City area, proving
like this that CEMEX’s claim that shipping terms were identical for all cement
types was false. Petitioners also pointed out that CEMEX made all of its long-distance
sales of Type II Cement C.I.F, but a significant number of CEMEX’s plants sold
Type I cement on a F.O.B. basis.