[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 203 (Friday, October 21, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26203]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: October 21, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-806]
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews:
Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From Japan
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 21, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Erik Warga or Dorothy Tomaszewski, Office of Antidumping
Investigations, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482-0922 and (202) 482-0631, respectively.
SUMMARY: In response to requests by the petitioners, the Department of
Commerce (``the Department'') has conducted administrative reviews of
the antidumping duty order on electrolytic manganese dioxide (``EMD'')
from Japan. The reviews cover one manufacturer/exporter of this
merchandise to the United States, Tosoh Corporation (``TOSOH''), during
the periods April 1, 1991, through March 31, 1992, April 1, 1992,
through March 31, 1993.
The Department has completed these reviews and has determined that
respondent's dumping margin should be based on best information
available (``BIA'') for the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 reviews. The margin
for this manufacturer/exporter is 77.43 percent for the 1991-1992 and
1992-1993 periods.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 13, 1994, and July 8, 1994, the Department published the
Federal Register notices of the preliminary results of its
administrative reviews for the periods April 1, 1992, through March 31,
1993 (59 FR 17511), and April 1, 1991, through March 31, 1992 (59 FR
35096), respectively. The Department gave interested parties an
opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. We received a
comment from petitioners, Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation and Chemetals
Incorporated, on July 20, 1994, relating to the 1992-1993 review. TOSOH
did not comment on either the 1991-1992 review or the 1992-1993 review.
The Department has completed these reviews in accordance with section
751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of Reviews
Imports covered by these reviews are shipments of electrolytic
manganese dioxide. EMD is manganese dioxide (MnO2) that has been
refined in an electrolysis process. During the review periods, such
merchandise was classifiable under subheading 2820.10.0000 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). The HTS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains
dispositive.
On January 6, 1992, the Department published a final scope ruling,
Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Japan; Final Scope Ruling (57 FR
395, January 6, 1992), in which it affirmed that high-grade chemical
manganese dioxide (CMD-U) is a ``later-developed product'' and is
included in the scope of the order on EMD from Japan. For a detailed
discussion of that ruling, see Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from
Japan; Preliminary Scope Ruling (56 FR 56977, November 7, 1991).
These reviews cover EMD sales to the United States by one
manufacturer/exporter, TOSOH.
Interested Party Comment
Comment
Petitioners request confirmation in the context of the 1992-1993
review that any subsequent review involving TOSOH's shipments of the
subject merchandise will include an inquiry into the correct basis for
U.S. prices of reviewed transactions. Specifically, petitioners request
that the Department confirm that it will make a determination in a
future review as to whether the price to test against fair value is
TOSOH's price to its customer, Mitsubishi Corporation (``Mitsubishi''),
or the price that Mitsubishi charges to its customer in the United
States.
DOC Position
It is not appropriate for the Department to speculate on the
resolution of issues that are not relevant to the instant proceeding.
Although petitioners argued that Mitsubishi's prices to its customer
should be the basis for U.S. price, this issue did not need to be
addressed in the 1992-1993 proceeding because TOSOH did not
participate. Whether, in subsequent review periods, the Department will
examine TOSOH's relationship with Mitsubishi is a matter to be decided
in those proceedings should the issue be raised.
Final Results of the Reviews
TOSOH declined to respond to section D of the Department's
questionnaire in the 1991-1992 review. TOSOH also did not respond to
any part of the Department's questionnaire in the 1992-1993 review.
Pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act, whenever a company refuses to
produce information requested or otherwise significantly impedes an
investigation, the Department will use BIA.
Because TOSOH refused, in both reviews, to respond to the
Department's questionnaire, we consider it to be an uncooperative
respondent. Our practice for uncooperative respondents is to apply as
BIA the higher of (1) the highest of the rates found for any firm in
the less-than-fair value (``LTFV'') investigation or prior
administrative reviews, or (2) the highest rate found in the current
review for any firm. See Final Results of Administrative Review:
Antifriction Bearings (other than Tapered Roller Bearings) from France
(58 FR 39729, 39739, July 26, 1993).
Accordingly, for both reviews, we used as BIA the highest of the
rates found for any firm in the original LTFV investigation: 77.43
percent (See Final Determination of the Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Japan (54 FR 8778, March 2, 1989)).
As a result of these reviews, we determine that the following
margins exist for each review period:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter Time period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOSOH...................................... 4/1/91-3/31/92 77.43
TOSOH...................................... 4/1/92-3/31/93 77.43
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will instruct the Customs Service to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries for each period of
review. Individual differences between United States price and foreign
market value may vary from the percentage stated above. The Department
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the deposit requirements will be effective for all
shipments of the subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of these administrative reviews, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act. A cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties
based on margins for the most recent period of April 1, 1992, through
March 31, 1993, shall be required on all shipments of subject
merchandise from Japan, as follows:
(1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be that
established in the final results of the 1992-1993 administrative
review;
(2) For previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed
above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific
rate published for the most recent period;
(3) If the exporter is not a firm covered in the 1992-1993 review,
a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered
in the 1992-1993 review, any previous review conducted by the
Department, or the original LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate
will be the ``all other'' rate established in the LTFV investigation of
73.30 percent. See the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Japan 58 FR 48826, 48833,
(September 20, 1993), for a further discussion of the Department's
practice in setting the all others rate.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during these review periods. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and terms of the APO is a sanctionable violation.
These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.
Dated: October 5, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-26203 Filed 10-20-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M9
