[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 48 (Monday, March 11, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9676-9678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5596]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-821-803]
Titanium Sponge From Russia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 26, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary results of review of the
antidumping finding on titanium sponge from Russia (33 FR 12138, August
28, 1968). The review covers one manufacturer, Berezniki Titanium-
Magnesium Works (AVISMA), and exports of the subject merchandise to the
United States for the period August 1, 1993 through July 31, 1994.
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results of review. Based on our analysis of the comments
received, we have not changed the final results from those presented in
the preliminary results of review.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 11, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Genovese or Zev Primor, Office
of Antidumping Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-
5254.
[[Page 9677]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 31, 1994, Titanium Metals Corporation (TIMET) a U.S.
producer of titanium sponge, AVISMA a Russian producer of titanium
sponge, Interlink Metals and Chemicals, Inc., (Interlink) an unrelated
third country reseller of titanium sponge, and RMI Titanium Company
(RMI), a U.S. importer of titanium sponge, requested an administrative
review of AVISMA's sales of subject merchandise. The Department
initiated the review on September 16, 1994 (59 FR 47609), covering the
period August 1, 1993, through July 31, 1994. On September 26, 1995,
the Department published the preliminary results of review (60 FR
49576). The Department has now completed this review in accordance with
section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Unless
otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the
Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they
existed on December 31, 1994.
Scope of the Review
The merchandise covered by this review is titanium sponge from
Russia. Titanium sponge is chiefly used for aerospace vehicles,
specifically, in the construction of compressor blades and wheels,
stator blades, rotors, and other parts in aircraft gas turbine engines.
Imports of titanium sponge are currently classifiable under the
harmonized tariff schedule (HTS) subheading 8108.10.50.10. The HTS
subheading is provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes; our
written description of the scope of this finding is dispositive.
This review covers one manufacturer, AVISMA, and the period August
1, 1993 through July 31, 1994.
Analysis of Comments Received
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results. We received comments from the respondent and the
petitioner. At the request of AVISMA, Interlink, and RMI, we held a
public hearing on December 7, 1995.
Comment 1
AVISMA argues that it had sufficient knowledge at the time of sale
that at least a portion of its sales were destined for resale in the
United States. AVISMA argues that there is sufficient and detailed
evidence on the record in the form of affidavits and letters of
correspondence to support its contention that while it did not know the
final destination of each of its sales at the time of sale, it did know
that a substantial portion of its sales to Interlink, an international
trader, were destined for the United States. Citing to Certain
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip Products From the Federal Republic of
Germany; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 48 FR
20459 (May 6, 1983) (Stainless Steel), AVISMA states that the
Department has based the United States price on the purchase price when
a foreign producer selling through a trading company knows that part of
the merchandise was destined for the United States at the time of
purchase.
AVISMA contends that its inability to identify particular shipments
that were resold in the United States is irrelevant and unnecessary to
the Department's final determination. AVISMA argues that the
Department's requirement, as described in Television Receivers,
Monochrome and Color, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 58 FR 11211 (February 24, 1993), that there be
knowledge of the destination of specific shipments is wrong. AVISMA
states that general knowledge of the destination of sales should be
enough under the antidumping law.
Petitioner, citing to Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from Taiwan, (56 FR
36130, July 31, 1991) and Urea from the U.S.S.R., (52 FR 19557, May 26,
1987), respectively, argues that: (1) it is the Department's
longstanding practice to base U.S. price on sales by a producer to an
unrelated trading company outside the United States only when the
producer knows at the time of sale that the merchandise is destined for
the United States; and, (2) the Department does not base U.S. price on
sales to an unrelated trading company when the producer does not know
at the time of sale that the merchandise is destined for the United
States. Petitioner states that in this case, AVISMA's export sales were
to unrelated companies for shipment to places outside the United States
and that AVISMA was not aware of the final destination of the
merchandise it sold for export at the time of sale. Petitioner states
that under these circumstances, the U.S. price must be based on the
sale from the trading company to the U.S. purchaser, i.e., the sale for
export to the United States.
Petitioner, citing to Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from the
Russian Federation, (60 FR 16440, March 30, 1995), further argues that
even if AVISMA had a general knowledge that some unknown portion of the
merchandise it exported might be entered for consumption in the United
States, such knowledge is insufficient to transform AVISMA's export
sales into sales of merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order.
Petitioner further challenges Interlink's suggestion that it is
``irrelevant and unnecessary'' for the Department to identify the
particular shipments that were resold to the United States in order to
make a final determination. Petitioner states that section 751(a)(2) of
the Act explicitly requires that assessments and deposits of estimated
antidumping duties be based on entries of merchandise subject to an
antidumping duty order and that merchandise sold for export to
destinations outside the United States is not subject to a U.S.
antidumping duty order.
Department's Position
We disagree with respondents. Section 772(b) of the Act defines
purchase price as ``the price at which merchandise is purchased, or
agreed to be purchased, prior to the date of importation, from a
reseller or the manufacturer or producer of the merchandise for
exportation to the United States.'' The Department has consistently
defined a U.S. sale as a sale in which a manufacturer is informed in
advance that the merchandise is destined for the United States, or has
reason to know of the ultimate destination of the merchandise at the
time of sale, through special markings, market-specific specifications,
or shipping instructions. See, e.g., Antifriction Bearings (Other Than
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts From France, et al.; Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, (57 FR 28360, 28423, June
24, 1992); Ferrovanadium and Nitride Vanadium From the Russian
Federation; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, (60 FR 27957, May 26, 1995); Natural Bristle Paint Brush and
Brush Heads From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, (55 FR 42599, October 22,
1990); Television Receivers, Monochrome and Color, From Japan; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, (58 FR 11211,
February 24, 1993); Oil Country Tubular Goods From Canada; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, (55 FR 50739,
December 10, 1990); Urea From the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, (52 FR 19557, May
26, 1987); and, Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from the Russian
Federation; Final
[[Page 9678]]
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, (60 FR 16440, March 30,
1995).
Furthermore, the Stainless Steel case cited by AVISMA does not
contradict the Department's practice. While AVISMA suggests that it
knew or should have known that part of the merchandise was destined for
the United States, the record demonstrates that AVISMA was not informed
in advance of the destination of the merchandise that it sold to
Interlink nor did it have reason to know of the ultimate destination of
the merchandise at the time of sale. Interlink, as an international
trader of metals, sells titanium sponge to other countries as well as
to the United States and titanium sponge specifications are based on
world-wide standards in accordance with its expected applications
rather than the ultimate destination of the merchandise.
Comment 2
Respondent argues that the Department should review Interlink's
sales to the United States because the request for review submitted on
behalf of AVISMA, Interlink, and RMI clearly was intended to cover
Interlink's sales to the United States during the period of review.
Respondent states that the submission on behalf of the three companies
requested the Department to conduct a review of ``AVISMA's U.S. sales
subject to the antidumping duty order on titanium sponge from Russia.''
Respondent states that since AVISMA is a producer of titanium sponge,
Interlink is an exporter of titanium sponge, and RMI is an importer of
titanium sponge, the clear intent of the request for review was to seek
a review of AVISMA's sales to the United States through the only
exporter identified, Interlink. Respondent argues that Interlink, in
seeking a review of AVISMA's sales, clearly intended for the Department
to review Interlink's shipments and that the Department cannot
rationally construe the request for review in any other manner.
Petitioner argues that since AVISMA was the only party for which a
review was requested it is the only party the Department is authorized
by law to review. Petitioner states that 19 CFR 353.22(a) authorizes
the Department to review only those producers or resellers for which it
has received a timely request for review. Petitioner states that,
pursuant to 19 CFR 353.22(e)(2), if the Department does not receive a
timely request for review of a producer or resellers, antidumping
duties are automatically assessed on entries of merchandise not covered
by the review request in the amount of the antidumping duties deposited
at the time the merchandise entered the United States.
Petitioner states that in this case, the Department received a
timely request for review of a specified producer, AVISMA and that
therefore, the assessment and deposit rates for all other producers and
resellers, including Interlink, are determined by operation of law.
Petitioner, citing to Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from Taiwan, (56 FR 36130,
July 31, 1991), argues that the Department does not, and in the context
of an administrative review, it cannot review sales by an unrelated
trading company unless it is asked to do so.
Department's Position
We disagree with the respondent. With respect to requests for
review, section 353.22(a) of the Department's regulations states that,
``(e)ach year during the anniversary month of the publication of an
order * * * an interested party * * * may request * * * an
administrative review of specified individual producers or resellers
covered by an order (emphasis added)'.' For those producers or
resellers for whom no review is specifically requested, the Department
``will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties * * *
on the merchandise not covered by the request.'' 19 C.F.R.
Sec. 353.22(e)(2)(1995).
In the instant case, interested parties (i.e., AVISMA, Interlink,
RMI, and TIMET) only requested an administrative review of AVISMA's
sales, not Interlink's sales. Accordingly, since a review of
Interlink's sales was not requested by interested parties, such sales
are not covered by this administrative review.
Final Results of Review
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have not changed
the final results from those presented in the preliminary results of
review. Accordingly, we have determined that, consistent with the
preliminary results, the margin for Russian titanium sponge that
entered the United States during the period of review will continue to
be the rate from the most recent review, which is 83.96 percent. The
Department will issue appraisement instruction directly to the U.S.
Customs Service.
Furthermore, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act, the cash
deposit rate for all shipments of titanium sponge from Russia, entered
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
publication date of the final results of this administrative review,
will be 83.96 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 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 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility
concerning the 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 the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
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: February 29, 1996.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-5596 Filed 3-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
