[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 231 (Friday, December 2, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-29727]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: December 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-840]
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Manganese Metal
From the People's Republic of China (PRC)
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 2, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Easton or John Brinkmann,
Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;
telephone: (202) 482-1777 or (202) 482-5288, respectively.
Initiation of Investigation
The Petition
On November 8, 1994, we received a petition filed in proper form
from KMCC of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and ELKEM, of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania (the petitioners). At the request of the Department of
Commerce (the Department), the petitioners filed a supplement to
support and clarify the data in the petition on November 22, 1994. In
accordance with 19 CFR 353.12 (1994), the petitioners allege that
manganese metal is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States
at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and that these imports are
materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Scope of Investigation
The subject merchandise in this investigation 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 investigation, 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.
United States Price and Foreign Market Value
The petitioners based United States price (USP) on observations of
price quotations obtained for manganese metal from the PRC from
December 1993 through May 1994. The terms of the prices observed in the
salepersons' call reports included delivery to the customer. In
calculating USP, the petitioners deducted a ten percent trading company
commission, a U.S. port-to-customer delivery charge, imputed ocean
freight, and U.S. duty. The Department did not allow the ten percent
trading company commission as a deduction to U.S. price because
petitioners could not support their assumption that the ten percent
trading company commission applied to imports of manganese metal from
the PRC.
The petitioners contend that the PRC is a non-market economy (NME)
country within the meaning of section 771(18)(A) of the Act. The
Department has determined in all previous investigations that the PRC
is an NME, and the presumption of NME status continues for purposes of
initiation of this investigation. See, e.g., Final Determination of
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Paper Clips from the PRC, 59 FR
51168 (October 7, 1994).
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, foreign market value
in NME cases is based on NME producers' factors of production, valued
in a market economy country. Consistent with Department practice,
absent evidence that the PRC government determines which of its
factories shall produce for export to the United States, we intend, for
purposes of this investigation, to base FMV only on those factories
that produced manganese metal sold to the United States during the
period of investigation (POI).
In the course of this investigation, parties will have the
opportunity to address our designation of the PRC as an NME and provide
relevant information and argument related to the issues of the PRC's
NME status and granting of separate rates to individual exporters. In
addition, parties will have the opportunity in this investigation to
submit comments on whether FMV should be based on prices or costs in
the PRC consistent with section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act. See Amendment
to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Amendment
to Antidumping Duty Order: Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from the People's
Republic of China, 57 FR 15052 (April 24, 1992).
Conforming with Department practice, the petitioners calculated FMV
on the basis of the valuation of the factors of production and,
claiming that their production process is similar to the Chinese
production process, based the factors of production on their own
experience. The factors of production were valued, where possible, on
publicly available published information pertaining to India. The
petitioners argue that India is both a country at a comparable level of
economic development to the PRC and a significant producer of
comparable merchandise, thus meeting the requirements of section
773(c)(4) of the Act. For purposes of this initiation, we have accepted
India as an appropriate surrogate country selection.
Where Indian values were not available, the petitioners valued the
factors of production using either a ratio based on their own
experience or their own costs.
In accordance with section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the
petitioners' FMV consisted of the sum of values assigned to materials,
labor, energy, overhead and selling, general and administrative (SG&A)
expenses. Certain of these factor values were adjusted for inflation.
Pursuant to section 773(e)(1) of the Act, the petitioners added to the
cost of manufacturing (COM), overhead and SG&A expenses, the statutory
minimum of eight percent for profit.
Based on our analysis of the petition and the subsequent supplement
to the petition, we have made certain adjustments to the petitioners'
FMV calculation as follows:
(1) we disallowed all factors valued by using the petitioners'
own costs;
(2) we recalculated factory overhead and depreciation expenses
using the statistics in the December 1992 Reserve Bank of India
Bulletin. This source is publicly available and has been used to
value factory overhead in other investigations of imports from the
PRC;
(3) for the purpose of initiating this investigation, we
recalculated the valuation of several process chemicals, using data
from the Chemical Marketing Reporter. This information was supplied
by the petitioners in their November 22, 1994, supplement to the
petition. We accepted this surrogate information for the purpose of
initiating the investigation because it is information that is
reasonably available to the petitioners for supporting their
allegations, within the meaning of section 732(b) of the Act.
(4) we recalculated electrical consumption using the industrial
rate for electricity in Indonesia, an appropriate surrogate country
at a comparable level of economic development to the PRC. In our
recent investigations of magnesium from the PRC, we found that the
Indian rate for electricity was inappropriate. See Preliminary
Determinations of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Postponement of
Final Determinations: Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from the
People's Republic of China, 59 FR 55424, 55426, November 7, 1994.
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on a comparison of USP and FMV, the petitioners' alleged
dumping margins, as revised by the Department, range from 104.77
percent to 143.32 percent.
Initiation of Investigation
Pursuant to section 732(c) of the Act, the Department must
determine, within 20 days after a petition is filed, whether a petition
alleges the elements necessary for the imposition of a duty under
section 731 of the Act and whether the petition contains information
reasonably available to the petitioner supporting the allegations.
We have examined the petition for manganese metal from the PRC, as
amended, and have found that it meets the requirements of section
732(b) of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping duty
investigation to determine whether imports of manganese metal from the
PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less
than fair value. If this investigation proceeds normally, we will make
our preliminary determination by April 27, 1995.
International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification
Section 732(d) of the Act requires us to notify the ITC of this
action and we have done so.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will determine by December 23, 1994, whether there is a
reasonable indication that imports of manganese metal from the PRC are
materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S.
industry. Pursuant to section 733(a) of the Act, a negative ITC
determination will result in the investigation being terminated;
otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
This notice is published pursuant to section 732(c)(2) of the Act
and 19 CFR 353.13(b).
Dated: November 28, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-29727 Filed 12-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
