[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60226-60228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29494]
[[Page 60226]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-840]
Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review of manganese metal from the People's Republic of
China.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests by Elkem Metals Company and Kerr-McGee
Chemical Corporation and by China Hunan International Economic
Development Corporation, China Metallurgical Import & Export Hunan
Corporation/Hunan Nonferrous Metals Import & Export Associated
Corporation, Minmetals Precious & Rare Minerals Import & Export
Corporation, and China National Electronics Import and Export Hunan
Company, the Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on manganese metal from the
People's Republic of China. The period of review is June 14, 1995
through January 31, 1997.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final
results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs to
assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between the export
price and NV on all appropriate entries.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit comments in this proceeding are requested
to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a
brief summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Lessard or Greg Campbell,
Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Office I, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone (202) 482-1778 or (202) 482-2239, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, all references
to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 353 (April 1997).
Background
On February 6, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register (61 FR 4415) the antidumping duty
order on manganese metal from the People's Republic of China (PRC). On
February 3, 1997, we published a notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the order for the period June 14, 1995 through
January 31, 1997 (62 FR 4978). In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a),
Elkem Metals Company and Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation (petitioners)
and China Hunan International Economic Development Corporation (HIED),
China Metallurgical Import & Export Hunan Corporation/Hunan Nonferrous
Metals Import & Export Associated Corporation (CMIECHN/CNIECHN), and
Minmetals Precious & Rare Minerals Import & Export Corporation
(Minmetals) requested that we conduct an administrative review. On
March 18, 1997, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c), we published a
notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review (62
FR 12793) for the period of review (POR).
The Department is now conducting this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Act.
Scope of Review
The merchandise covered by this review is manganese metal, which is
composed principally of manganese, by weight, but also contains some
impurities such as carbon, sulfur, phosphorous, iron and silicon.
Manganese metal contains by weight not less than 95 percent manganese.
All compositions, forms and sizes of manganese metal are included
within the scope of this administrative review, including metal flake,
powder, compressed powder, and fines. The subject merchandise is
currently classifiable under subheadings 8111.00.45.00 and
8111.00.60.00 of the Harmonized Tariff schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience
and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this
proceeding is dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified factor
information provided by Xiang Tan Manganese Mine (XTMM) and Hunan
Special Metal Material Plant (Special), using standard verification
procedures, including on-site inspection of manufacturers' facilities,
the examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection
of original documentation containing relevant information. Our
verification results are outlined in the public versions of the
verification reports.
Separate Rates
1. Background and Summary of Findings
It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of
the merchandise subject to review in non-market-economy (NME) countries
a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of
government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports.
To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department
analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria established in the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People's Republic of China (56 FR 20588, May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as
amplified in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China (59 FR 22585, May
2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Evidence supporting, though not requiring,
a finding of de jure absence of government control over export
activities includes: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations
associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;
(2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and
(3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control
of companies. See Sparklers at 20589. A de facto analysis of absence of
government control over exports is based on four factors--whether the
respondent: (1) Sets its own export prices independent from the
government and other exporters; (2) can retain the proceeds from its
export sales; (3) has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts;
and (4) has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of
management. See Silicon Carbide at 22587; see also Sparklers at 20589.
In our final determination of sales at less than fair value (LTFV),
the Department determined that there was de jure and de facto absence
of government control of each company's export activities and
determined that each company warranted a company-
[[Page 60227]]
specific dumping margin. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR
56045 (Manganese Metal). For this period of review, HIED and CMIECHN/
CNIECHN have responded to the Department's request for information
regarding separate rates. We have found that the evidence on the record
is consistent with the final determination in the LTFV investigation
and continues to demonstrate an absence of government control, both in
law and in fact, with respect to their exports, in accordance with the
criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.
For Minmetal and China National Electronics Import and Export Hunan
Company (CEIEC), which had no sales during this POR, the company-
specific rates of 5.88 percent and 11.77 percent, respectively, from
the LTFV investigation remain unchanged.
Export Price
For sales made by HIED and CMIECHN/CNIECHN to the United States, we
calculated an export price, in accordance with section 772(a) of the
Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to unrelated purchasers
in the United States prior to importation into the United States.
We calculated export price based on the price to unrelated
purchasers. We deducted an amount, when appropriate, for foreign inland
freight, ocean freight, and marine insurance. Generally, the costs for
these items were valued in the surrogate country. However, where
transportation services were purchased from market economy carriers and
paid for in market economy currency, we used the cost actually incurred
by the exporter.
Normal Value
For companies located in NME countries, section 773(c)(1) of the
Act provides that the Department shall determine normal value (NV)
using a factors-of-production methodology if (1) the merchandise is
exported from an NME country, and (2) the information does not permit
the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices,
or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act.
The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all
previous antidumping cases. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, any determination that a foreign country is a NME country
shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority.
None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment in
this review. Furthermore, available information does not permit the
calculation of NV using home market prices, third country prices or CV
under section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, we treated the PRC as a NME
country for purposes of this review and calculated NV by valuing the
factors of production in a comparable market economy country which is a
significant producer of comparable merchandise. Factors of production
include, but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2)
quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other
utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital cost, including
depreciation.
In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act and section
353.52(c) of our regulations, we determined that India is comparable to
the PRC in terms of (1) per capita gross national product (GNP), (2)
the growth rate in per capita GNP, and (3) the national distribution of
labor. In addition, India is a significant producer of comparable
merchandise. Therefore, for this review, we selected India as the
surrogate on the basis of the above criteria, and have used publicly
available information relating to India, unless otherwise noted, to
value the various factors of production. (See memorandum to Susan
Kuhbach from Jeff May, dated May 28, 1997, ``Manganese Metal from the
PRC: Nonmarket Economy Status and Surrogate Country Selection''
(attached to June 25, 1997 letters to interested parties), and
memorandum to Richard W. Moreland from Team, dated October 24, 1997,
which are in the file in the Central Records Unit (room B099 of the
Main Commerce building).)
For purposes of calculating NV, we valued PRC factors of
production, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. In
examining surrogate values, we selected, where possible, the publicly
available value which was: (1) An average non-export value; (2)
representative of a range of prices within the POR or most
contemporaneous with the POR; (3) product-specific; and (4) tax-
exclusive. Where we could not obtain a POR-representative price for an
appropriate surrogate value, we selected a value in accordance with the
remaining criteria mentioned above and which was the closest in time to
the POR. In accordance with this methodology, we valued the factors as
follows:
We valued manganese ore using a September 1993 export
price quote from a Brazilian manganese mine for manganese carbonate
lump ore. (For a further discussion of this issue, please refer to the
October 24, 1997 memorandum to Richard W. Moreland from Team.) While it
is our normal practice to apply an inflation adjustment to prices
predating the period of review, in this case, we have information which
indicates that prices for manganese ore have fallen over time.
Therefore, we adjusted the price to account for declining manganese ore
prices between September 1993 and the POR.
For the value of process chemicals used in the production
process of manganese metal, we used values obtained from the following
Indian sources: Indian Chemical Weekly (June 95-May 1996); the Monthly
Trade Statistics of Foreign Trade of India, Volume II--Imports,
February 1996 (Indian Import Statistics); and the Indian Minerals
Yearbook: 1995. Where necessary, we adjusted these values to reflect
inflation up to the POR using wholesale price indices (WPI) published
by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Additionally, we adjusted to
account for freight costs incurred between the suppliers and manganese
metal producers.
For labor values, we used data from the 1996 Yearbook of
Labor Statistics (YLS) published by the United Nations. We adjusted
these rates to reflect inflation up to the POR using the consumer price
indices (CPI) published by the IMF. We used the CPI, rather than the
WPI, for calculating the inflation adjustment for labor because the
Department views the CPI as more representative of changes in wage
rates, while the WPI is more representative of prices for material
goods.
For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative
expenses (SG&A), and profit values, we used information from the
January 1997 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin for the Indian industry
group ``Processing and Manufacturing: Metals, Chemicals, and Products
Thereof.'' To value factory overhead, we calculated the ratio of
factory overhead expenses to the cost of materials, labor, and energy.
From the same source, we were able to calculate the selling, general &
administrative (SG&A) expense as a percentage of the cost of
manufacturing and profit as a percentage of the cost of production
(i.e., the cost of manufacturing plus SG&A).
For most packing materials values, we used the per
kilogram values obtained from the Indian Import Statistics. For one
packing material, we used a price quote from an Indian manufacturer and
adjusted the value to reflect inflation up to the POR using the WPI
published by the IMF. We used this price quote rather than the Indian
Import Statistics because the quoted
[[Page 60228]]
price was for the appropriate type of container used, whereas the
Indian Import Statistics were aggregated over various types of
containers. We made further adjustments to account for freight costs
incurred between the PRC supplier and manganese metal producers.
To value electricity, we used the average rate applicable
to large industrial users throughout India as reported in the 1995
Confederation of Indian Industries Handbook of Statistics. We adjusted
the March 1, 1995 value to reflect inflation up to the POR using the
WPI published by the IMF.
To value rail freight, we relied upon rates quoted by a
manganese mine in India. We adjusted the rate to reflect inflation up
to the POR using WPI published by the IMF.
To value truck freight, we used a rate derived from a
newspaper article in the April 20, 1994 issue of The Times of India. We
adjusted the rate to reflect inflation up to the POR using WPI
published by the IMF.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of our comparison of the EP to NV, we preliminarily
determine that the following dumping margins exist for the period June
14, 1995, through January 31, 1997:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIED....................................................... 11.00
CMIECHN/CNIECHN............................................ 6.43
Minmetals.................................................. 5.88
CEIEC...................................................... 11.77
Country-Wide Rate.......................................... 143.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held approximately 44 days after the publication of
this notice. Interested parties may submit written comments (case
briefs) within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
Rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), which must be limited to issues
raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after
the date of publication. The Department will issue a notice of final
results of this administrative review, including the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments, within 120 days
of publication of these preliminary results.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between EP and NV may vary from the percentages stated
above. We have calculated an importer-specific duty assessment rate
based on the ratio of the total amount of AD duties calculated for the
examined sales made during the POR to the total value of subject
merchandise entered during the POR. In order to estimate the entered
value, we subtracted international movement expenses (e.g.,
international freight and marine insurance) from the gross sales value.
This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of that particular
importer made during the POR. The Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be
effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative
review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for the PRC
companies that have separate rates and were reviewed (HIED and CMIECN/
CNIECN), the cash deposit rates will be the rates for these firms
established in the final results of this review; (2) for Minmetals and
CEIEC, which we determined to be entitled to a separate rate in the
LTFV investigation but which did not have shipments to the United
States during the POR, the rates will continue to be 5.88 percent and
11.77 percent, respectively, the rates which currently apply to these
companies; and (3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate
will be 143.32 percent. 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 preliminary 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 this review period. 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 administrative review 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 31, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-29494 Filed 11-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
