[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7624-7626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-3694]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-840]
Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China; Amended
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of amended final results of the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on manganese metal from the People's
Republic of China.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 13, 1998, the Department of Commerce published (62 FR
12440) the final results and partial rescission of the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on manganese metal from the
People's Republic of China. The review covered the period June 14, 1995
through January 31, 1997. Subsequent to the publication of the final
results, we received comments from both petitioners and respondents
alleging various ministerial errors. After analyzing the comments
submitted, we are amending our final results to correct certain
ministerial errors. This amendment to the final results is published in
accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(c).
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 16, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Campbell or Cynthia
Thirumalai; Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Group I,
Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce; 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone numbers (202) 482-2239 or (202) 482-
4087, respectively.
Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930
(``the Act''), as amended, 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''). Additionally, unless
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are
to 19 CFR 353 (April 1997).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 13, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
published in the Federal Register the final results and partial
rescission of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order
covering the period of June 14, 1995 through January 31, 1997 on
manganese metal from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). See
Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of China; Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR
12440 (March 13, 1998) (``Final Results of Review''). Subsequently, the
following parties submitted ministerial error allegations: Elkem Metals
Company and Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation (together comprising the
``petitioners''), and China Hunan International Economic Development
Corporation (``HIED'') and China Metallurgical Import & Export Hunan
Corporation/Hunan Nonferrous Metals Import & Export Associated
Corporation (``CMIECHN/CNIECHN'') (together comprising the
``respondents'').
On April 9, 1998 the petitioners filed a summons with the Court of
International Trade (``CIT''), and in a subsequent complaint dated May
11, 1998 challenged the Department's final results of the
administrative review. The Department, therefore, suspended any action
on the ministerial error allegations until the CIT issued, on November
4, 1998, an order of dismissal of the petitioners' complaint.
A summary of each allegation along with the Department's response
is included below. We are hereby amending our final results, pursuant
to 19 CFR 353.28(c), to reflect the correction of those errors which
are clerical in nature.
Analysis of Comments Received
Allegation 1: The petitioners argue that the Department erred in
its calculation of the value of Factors A and K.\1\ In order to adjust
the factor prices to a period contemporaneous with the period of review
(``POR''), the Department multiplied each surrogate value by the change
in world-traded prices between 1993, the period for which the surrogate
value is quoted, and the Japanese fiscal year 1995. (As explained in
the Final Results of Review, we used as a proxy for world-traded ore
prices the annual contract price in Japan of high-grade manganese ore.)
The petitioners note that the record contains world-traded ore prices
for 1996 as well. The petitioners argue that, because the POR is June
14, 1995 through January 31, 1997, the Department should have used an
average of the 1995 and 1996 world-traded prices, as this would be more
representative of the prices in effect throughout the duration of the
POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A key to the naming convention for business proprietary
factors of production is included as Exhibit J of the Memorandum to
the File: Calculations for the Final Results of Review (March 9,
1998) (``Calculation Memorandum''). A public version of this
document is available in the Department's Central Records Unit, Room
B-099.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The respondents counter that the petitioners' argument involves a
deliberate choice by the Department about methodology and, therefore,
does not properly fall within the definition of ministerial error. The
respondents further note that the petitioners themselves in their
submission acknowledge that this point is methodological in nature.
Department's Position: We agree with the respondents. The
petitioners' argument involves a methodological decision by the
Department and, as such, does not constitute a ministerial error. This
methodology is clearly identified in the Final Results of Review and in
the Calculation Memorandum. Thus, no revision has been made.
Allegation 2: The petitioners argue that the Department's choice of
a surrogate ore from ``Producer X'' for valuing Factor B is inferior to
the petitioners' proposed surrogate from Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores
Ltd. based on a comparison of the manganese-to-iron ratios of the two.
The respondents counter that the petitioners' argument involves a
deliberate choice by the Department about methodology and, therefore,
does not properly fall within the definition of ministerial error.
Department's Position: We agree with the respondents. The
Department's choice of any one surrogate value over alternative values
does not represent a ministerial error. The selection of appropriate
surrogate values for manganese ore in this case has been a highly
contentious issue. During the course of the administrative review, the
Department considered all of the arguments presented by the parties, in
favor of and opposed to each ore surrogate alternative. Our reasons for
choosing the ore from ``Producer X'' to value Factor B have been
clearly
[[Page 7625]]
enunciated in the Final Results of Review. Therefore, no revision to
this calculation has been made.
Allegation 3: The petitioners argue that the Department, in its
calculation of the surrogate value for Factor K, has assigned to that
factor an incorrect average manganese content. According to the
petitioners, documents on the file indicate that the correct content is
much lower.
The respondents offer no comment.
Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners. The
Department misinterpreted the reported manganese dioxide content of
Factor K as its manganese content. We have revised this calculation
accordingly.
Allegation 4: The petitioners argue that the Department has
identified incorrectly the mode of transportation used in one of the
shipments of Factor J. According to the petitioners, verified
information on the record indicates that the correct mode is by train
rather than by truck.
The respondents argue the petitioners are wrong because the
Department verified that two modes of transportation are used to supply
Factor J.
Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners. In the
calculation of the weighted-average freight cost for all of the
suppliers of Factor J, the Department inadvertently listed one shipment
as being transported by truck rather than by train. The freight
calculation has therefore been revised to reflect the correct mode of
transportation.
Allegation 5: The petitioners argue that the Department's computed
unit consumption value for Factor O is incorrect based on verified
information contained in the record.
The respondents agree with the petitioners that the Department
erred in its calculation; however, what the respondents argue to be the
correct value is different from that of the petitioners. The
respondents contend that the value for Factor O should be the value
verified by the Department.
Department's Position: We disagree with both the petitioners and
the respondents. We have reexamined our calculation for Factor O and
have confirmed that it is correct. The value put forward by the
respondents is the verified weight of a single unit of Factor O, rather
than the amount of Factor O consumed in the production of one metric
ton of manganese metal (i.e., Factor O unit consumption). Therefore,
the respondents' figure does not represent the unit consumption of
Factor O, unit consumption being the goal of the particular calculation
in question. The difference between our figure and the petitioners'
figure appears to be only the result of rounding numbers in the
intermediate calculations to a different decimal place. Consequently,
no revision to this calculation has been made.
Allegation 6: The petitioners allege that the Department mistakenly
has included a by-product credit in the factors of production of
certain manganese metal powder manufacturers even though the record
indicates that no by-products are generated in the powder production
process.
The respondents counter that, because manganese metal flake is an
input into powder production and the Department did not account for the
by-product in the flake-production stage, it must therefore take it
into account at the powder-producing stage.
Department's Position: We disagree with both the petitioners and
the respondents. The record indicates that a by-product is generated
during production of flake, but not during the production of manganese
metal powder. Accordingly, we have included a by-product credit when
calculating the flake cost of production. However, flake is also used
as an input into powder production. To value the flake input into
powder production, we have used the calculated cost of direct
materials, direct labor, and direct electricity of flake manufacture,
inclusive of the by-product credit assigned to the flake producer.
Therefore, no revision to the calculation is necessary.
Allegation 7: The petitioners note that, in the Department's
weighted-average dumping margin calculation for these final results,
the Department used the U.S. gross unit price, whereas in past
proceedings the Department has used U.S. net unit price.
The respondents counter that the petitioners' point is of a
methodological nature and does not represent a clerical error.
Department's Position: The petitioners are correct that the
Department erred in this calculation. The Department intended to
calculate the dumping margin by dividing the U.S. net total value into
the total amount of duty due. The error was the result of misdirected
cell references in our calculation spreadsheet. The dumping margin
calculation has been revised accordingly.
Allegation 8: The petitioners contend that the Department should
have included adjustments for bank charges and inspection fees.
The respondents counter that the petitioners' point is of a
methodological nature and does not represent a clerical error.
Department's Position: As explained in Comment 13 in the Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Manganese Metal
from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 56045, 56052 (November 6,
1995), and in the Calculation Memorandum, the Department's established
policy in non-market-economy cases is not to make circumstance-of-sale
adjustments. These bank charges and inspection fees are selling
expenses. Therefore, this omission was intentional on the part of the
Department and, as such, does not represent a ministerial error.
Consequently, no revision is necessary.
Allegation 9: The respondents allege that, in its calculation of
the value of Factor B, the Department used the lower of the reported
range of manganese contents rather than the average for the reported
range of the surrogate value.
The petitioners had no comment.
Department's Position: We agree with the respondents. The
Department inadvertently used the reported minimum rather than the
reported average content. The value for Factor B has therefore been
recalculated using the reported average manganese content.
Allegation 10: The respondents argue that the Department erred in
its adjustment for the chemical composition of Factor C in that it
divided rather than multiplied the factor price by its chemical
content.
The petitioners counter that the Department's calculation is
correct based on verified information on record.
Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners. We have
reviewed our calculation for the chemical composition of Factor C and
have confirmed it is correct. No revision is necessary.
Amended Final Results of Review
As a result of our analysis of the ministerial error allegations
received, we are amending margins we published in the final results. We
hereby determine the following weighted-average margins exist for the
period June 14, 1995 through January 31, 1997:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIED....................................................... 3.28
CMIECHN/CNIECHN............................................ 1.94
CEIEC*..................................................... 11.77
Minmetals*................................................. 5.88
[[Page 7626]]
PRC-wide................................................... 143.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*CEIEC and Minmetals reported that they had no sales to the United
States during the POR. The rate for each of these companies will
therefore remain unchanged from that determined in Notice of Amended
Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Manganese Metal from
the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 4415 (February 6, 1996) (``LTFV
Investigation'').
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between export price (``EP'') and normal value (``NV'') may
vary from the percentages stated above. We have calculated exporter/
importer-specific duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total
amount of 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 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.
The following amended cash deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of this notice of amended 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 companies named above that have separate rates and were
reviewed (i.e., HIED and CMIECHN/CNIECHN), the cash deposit rates will
be the rates listed above specifically for those firms; (2) for
companies which established their eligibility for a separate rate in
the LTFV Investigation but were found not to have exported subject
merchandise to the United States during the POR (i.e., CEIEC and
Minmetals), the cash deposit rates continue to be the currently
applicable rates of 11.77% and 5.88%, respectively; (3) for all other
PRC exporters, all of which were found not to be entitled to a separate
rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 143.32%; and (4) for
non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter.
These deposit requirements will remain in effect until publication of
the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice serves as a 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 has occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (``APOs'') of their responsibility
concerning disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of the
return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review is in accordance with section 751(a)(1)
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22. This amendment to
the final results is published in accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(c).
Dated: February 8, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-3694 Filed 2-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
