[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 16, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12977-12982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6281]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-122-814]
Pure Magnesium From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of administrative review and
determination not to revoke order in part.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 12, 1998, the Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on pure magnesium from Canada and its notice of intent not
to revoke the order with respect to pure magnesium produced by Norsk
Hydro Canada Inc. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment
on the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments
received, we have made certain changes for the final results.
This review covers one producer/exporter of pure magnesium to the
United States during the period August 1, 1996, through July 31, 1997.
The review indicates no dumping margins during the review period.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 16, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zak Smith or Stephanie Hoffman, Import
Administration, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Office 1, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.
20230; telephone (202) 482-0189 or 482-4198, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting this
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act
of 1930 (``the Act''), as amended. Unless otherwise indicated, all
citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act
[[Page 12978]]
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to those
codified at 19 CFR part 351 (April 1998).
Background
On May 12, 1998, the Department published the preliminary results
of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure
magnesium from Canada and notice of the intent not to revoke the order
in part (63 FR 26147) (``Preliminary Results''). The producer/exporter
in this review is Norsk Hydro Canada Inc. (``NHCI''). We received
comments and rebuttal comments from NHCI and petitioner, Magnesium
Corporation of America (``Magcorp'') (see Interested Party Comments,
below). A hearing was held on July 29, 1998. The time limit for the
final results of this administrative review was extended on both
September 16, and November 18, 1998.
Subsequent to the Department's decision in Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon
Steel Plate From Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Determination To Revoke in Part (64 FR 2173,
(January 13, 1999) (``Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada''), NHCI
made a submission commenting upon the position taken by the Department
in that case. Although the deadline for submission of argumentation had
passed, given the length of time (more than six months) that has
elapsed since our formal comment period and in light of the potential
relevance of the Department's determination in Corrosion-Resistant
Steel from Canada, we decided to place NHCI's submission on the record
and take it into account in these final results. We also permitted
petitioner to comment upon Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada and
respondent's submission concerning that determination.
Scope of the Review
The product covered by this review is pure magnesium. Pure
unwrought magnesium contains at least 99.8 percent magnesium by weight
and is sold in various slab and ingot forms and sizes. Granular and
secondary magnesium are excluded from the scope of this review. Pure
magnesium is currently classified under subheading 8104.11.0000 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS''). The HTS item number is provided
for convenience and for customs purposes. The written description
remains dispositive.
Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part
The Department ``may revoke, in whole or in part'' an antidumping
duty order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act.
While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department
must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a
procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This
regulation requires, inter alia, that a company requesting revocation
must submit the following: (1) A certification that the company has
sold the subject merchandise at not less than normal value (``NV'') in
the current review period and that the company will not sell at less
than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold the
subject merchandise in each of the three years forming the basis of the
request in commercial quantities; and (3) an agreement to reinstatement
in the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent
to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR
351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, the Department may
revoke an order, in part, if it concludes that (1) the company in
question has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period
of at least three consecutive years; (2) it is not likely that the
company will in the future sell the subject merchandise at less than
NV; and (3) the company has agreed to its immediate reinstatement in
the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to
the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2).
In our Preliminary Results, we determined that ``based on the
evidence on the record, we cannot reasonably conclude that NHCI is not
likely to dump in the future if the order were revoked'' (see
Memorandum to Gary Taverman, dated May 4, 1998).
After consideration of the various comments that were submitted in
response to the preliminary results, we have concluded that we must
determine, as a threshold matter, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222,
whether the company requesting revocation sold the subject merchandise
in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming the basis
of the request. As stated in Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada (at
2189), ``respondents must meet the threshold criterion of three
consecutive years of sales in commercial quantities at not less than
[normal value] in order to be eligible for revocation.''
We determine that NHCI did not sell the subject merchandise in the
United States in commercial quantities in any of the three years cited
by NHCI to support its request for revocation. Specifically, NHCI made
one sale in two of the relevant years and two sales in the other. One
or two sales to the United States during a one year period is not
consistent with NHCI's selling activity prior to the order nor is it
consistent with NHCI's selling activity in the home market (see
Memorandum from Team to Susan Kuhbach, ``Commercial Quantities,'' dated
March 8, 1999, for a discussion of NHCI's selling activity).
Furthermore, we found that, for each year, the volume of merchandise
sold was less than one-half of one percent of the volume of merchandise
sold in the last completed fiscal year prior to the order. These sales
and volume figures are so small, both in absolute terms and in
comparison with the period of investigation, that we cannot reasonably
conclude that the zero margins NHCI received are reflective of the
company's normal commercial experience. More specifically, the
abnormally low level of sales activity does not provide a reasonable
basis for determining that the discipline of the order is no longer
necessary to offset dumping. Therefore, we find that NHCI does not
qualify for revocation of the order on pure magnesium under 19 CFR
351.222(b) and (e)(1)(ii).
Comparisons
We calculated export price and normal value based on the same
methodology used in the Preliminary Results, with the following
exceptions:
Based upon comments received from respondent, when determining the
appropriate home market sales to use for comparison purposes the
Department is now matching to identical sales. Also, based upon
comments received from respondent, we have made the necessary changes
such that home market freight charges are being converted
appropriately.
Interested Party Comments
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309, we invited interested parties to
comment on our Preliminary Results. On June 11 and June 16, 1998,
petitioner and respondent submitted case briefs and rebuttal briefs,
respectively. At the request of respondent, a public hearing was held
on July 29, 1998. In addition, we received interested party comments
from Chicago White Metal Casting, Inc., Magnesium Products of America,
Inc., Reynolds Metals Company, and Alcan Aluminum Corporation.
[[Page 12979]]
Comment 1: Commercial Quantities
Petitioner opposes revocation of the antidumping duty order in
part, arguing that respondent has not met the requirements for
revocation. Specifically, petitioner points to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii)
which requires respondents to certify that they have sold the subject
merchandise in commercial quantities to the United States during each
of the three consecutive years. Petitioner argues that NHCI's sales to
the United States during the last three review periods were far too
small to be considered commercial quantities. In petitioner's view,
these were merely token sales whose only purpose was to obtain three
years of zero antidumping margins and qualify for revocation.
Petitioner contends that the concept of commercial quantities
refers to the aggregate volume of sales made by a respondent over the
course of the entire period of review (``POR'') and not to the size of
a single sale used in the calculation of an antidumping margin. In
support for this argument, petitioner claims that there would be no
reason for the requirement of commercial quantities in 19 CFR
351.222(e)(1)(ii) if the term merely referred to the existence of any
sale recognizable as a U.S. sale for calculating an antidumping margin
because there would be no reason for the Department to ask a respondent
to certify a fact that has already been established.
Petitioner further argues that only if a respondent's sales are
sufficiently large will a zero antidumping margin offer any valid
indication that the respondent can continue to export the subject
merchandise to the United States at normal prices if the antidumping
duty order were revoked. As an example, petitioner points to the
Department's decision not to revoke the antidumping duty order in Brass
Sheet and Strip From Germany; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 61 FR
49727 (September 23, 1996) (``German Brass Sheet'') due to the small
volume of shipments. Petitioner also refers to the preamble of the
final regulations in which the Department states that a revocation
based on the absence of dumping is based on the fact that when a
respondent sells in commercial quantities without dumping it has
demonstrated that it will not resume dumping if the order is revoked
(see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule (``Final
Regulations''), 62 FR 27296, 27326 (May 19, 1997)).
Respondent argues that the term ``commercial quantities'' refers
not to the number or volume of sales, but to whether any individual
sale was a normal size transaction for the industry. In support for
this argument, respondent points to the proposed regulations in which
the Department states that it will ``establish whether sales were made
in commercial quantities based upon examination of the normal sizes of
sales by the producer/exporter and other producers of subject
merchandise.'' (See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Proposed
Rule (``Proposed Regulations''), 61 FR 7308, 7320 (February 27, 1996)).
Respondent believes that the Department never intended to consider the
aggregate volume of sales made throughout the POR. Rather, NHCI argues,
the concept of commercial quantities was included in the regulations to
ensure that individual sales made during an intervening year were of
sufficient size to permit the Department to conduct a review had one
been requested (as opposed to sales of samples or prototypes and sales
so small that they could not be regarded as bona fide commercial
transactions). Respondent further argues that the Department's
application of the criterion in Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada
inappropriately disqualifies respondents from revocation, even when
reviews are conducted in all three years.
Department's Position: NHCI has requested revocation based on the
absence of dumping. As explained above, to consider such a request we
must determine, as a threshold matter, whether the company requesting
revocation sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities in
each of the three years forming the basis of the request. See 19 CFR
351.222(e)(1)(i)-(iii); see also, 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1).
We disagree with NHCI's argument that the commercial quantities
criterion requires only that there be a bona fide commercial
transaction during a given period. As the Department recently
explained, ``sales during the POR which, in the aggregate, are an
abnormally small quantity do not provide a reasonable basis for
determining that the discipline of the order is no longer necessary to
offset dumping'' (see Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada at 2175).
As the record of this case demonstrates, NHCI did not sell the subject
merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities in any of the
three years cited by NHCI to support its request for revocation.
Regardless of the bona fide nature of each transaction, these sales, in
the aggregate, are abnormally small in quantity and do not provide the
Department with a reasonable basis to make a revocation determination
(see Memorandum from Team to Susan Kuhbach, ``Commercial Quantities,''
dated March 8, 1999).
We also note that while the regulation requiring sales in
commercial quantities may have developed from the unreviewed
intervening year regulation, its application in all revocation cases
based on an absence of dumping is reasonable and mandated by the
regulations. The application of this requirement to all such cases is
reflected not only in the provision for unreviewed intervening years
(see 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1)), but also in the new general requirement
that parties seeking revocation certify to sales in commercial
quantities in each of the years on which revocation is to be based. See
19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii). This requirement ensures that the
Department's revocation determination is based upon a sufficient
breadth of information regarding a company's normal commercial
practice. As in Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada (at 2175), in
this case the number of sales and the total sales volumes are so small,
both in absolute terms and in comparison with the period of
investigation and other review periods, that these sales do not provide
sufficient information on a company's normal commercial experience to
make a revocation decision. If sales are not reflective of a company's
normal commercial activities, they can offer no basis upon which to
make a revocation determination, regardless of whether we conducted a
review or the sales took place in an intervening year.
Comment 2: Sales Drop-Off
Petitioner argues that NHCI's withdrawal from the U.S. market in
the two first review periods after imposition of the antidumping duty
order and the company's insignificant U.S. sales in the subsequent
three review periods demonstrates that NHCI cannot sell commercially
significant quantities without resorting to dumping. Petitioner points
to the Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the
Uruguay Round Trade Agreements which states that ``. . . the
cessation of imports after the order, is highly probative of the
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping'' (see H.R. Doc.
316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (1994) p. 889). Petitioner argues
that although this statement was made in the context of sunset reviews,
it provides guidance on how a respondent would act in the absence of an
antidumping order.
[[Page 12980]]
Respondent states that it made no sales to the United States in the
first and second review periods because of the prohibitively high
antidumping and countervailing duty cash deposit rates. This lack of
sales activity is irrelevant, according to NHCI, since NHCI made sales
to the United States during the third, fourth, and fifth review periods
which constituted a significant increase in sales compared to the first
two review periods.
Moreover, respondent argues that it would be incorrect to use the
original period of investigation as a benchmark for NHCI's normal
commercial behavior because at that time, the company was still in the
process of ramping up production and establishing its customer base.
Respondent explains that after the imposition of the antidumping duty
order, it redirected its marketing strategy toward other export markets
and developed a strong home market for pure magnesium. NHCI, along with
other interested parties, notes that it also increased its production
and sales of alloy magnesium to the extent that by 1997, it had become
primarily a producer of alloy magnesium.
Regarding petitioner's reference to the SAA, respondent argues that
the cited portion deals with sunset and changed circumstances reviews
and, therefore, does not apply to revocation reviews based on the
absence of dumping. In sunset reviews, it is presumed that a drop-off
in exports after the imposition of an antidumping duty order indicates
increased likelihood of continued or resumed dumping if the order were
revoked, but such presumption does not exist in the context of a
revocation based on the absence of dumping, according to respondent.
Department's Position: We have considered the parties' arguments
regarding the post-order sales drop-off in a different context for
these final results, which rely on the absence of sales in commercial
quantities rather than the likelihood of future dumping. Regarding
respondent's claim that it would be incorrect to use the original
period of investigation as a benchmark for NHCI's normal commercial
behavior, we disagree. Assessment of the threshold regulatory
requirement that there be sales in commercial quantities during each of
the three years of review cannot take place in a vacuum. The period of
investigation is a logical and reasonable benchmark for this
assessment, especially given that it is the only time period for which
we have evidence concerning NHCI's commercial behavior with respect to
exports to the United States without the discipline of an antidumping
duty order. While we recognize that NHCI was a relatively new company
at the time of the original investigation, logically this would tend to
support the argument that their sales should have increased, rather
than decreased.
In addition to examining NHCI's commercial activity during the
period of investigation, the Department also examined information
regarding NHCI's sales of pure magnesium to other markets for the three
years in question. Examination of the number and volume of sales made
in these markets further supports our determination that the sales to
the United States were not made in commercial quantities. Moreover,
this very evidence indicates that NHCI has not completely redirected
its market focus toward alloy magnesium but, in fact, maintains
significant pure magnesium sales volumes in other pure magnesium
markets, all of which are markedly smaller and more distant than the
U.S. market.
Comment 3: Alleged Creation of New Revocation Requirement and Deviation
from Normal Practice
NHCI objects to the application by the Department of a new
requirement in its Preliminary Results; namely, that a company must
``participate meaningfully in the U.S. market'' to qualify for
revocation. In support of its argument, NHCI points to the Department's
statements in its Proposed Regulations and in the Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not
to Revoke Order in Part: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of
One Megabyte or Above From the Republic of Korea, 62 FR 39809 (July 24,
1997) (``DRAMS from Korea'') where it said that the Final Regulations
did not change the previous revocation requirements. Furthermore,
respondent refers to past cases (e.g., Antifriction Bearings (Other
Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from Italy, 60 FR 10959
(February 28, 1995) and Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel, 57 FR
10008 (March 23, 1992)) in which the Department decided to revoke
antidumping duty orders although the exporters' U.S. sales were small.
Respondent and other interested parties further argue that although
the Department's regulations require a finding that respondent is
unlikely to sell the subject merchandise below normal value in the
future, the Department has generally agreed to revocation based on two
criteria: three consecutive years of zero dumping margins; and an
agreement by respondent to immediate reinstatement of the order if it
resumes dumping in the future. According to NHCI, the Department has
consistently found that these two criteria are dispositive of the ``not
likely'' analysis and that the Department generally does not conduct
such an analysis. Thus, NHCI claims that by not revoking the
antidumping duty order based on these two criteria, the Department has
deviated from its normal practice.
Petitioner argues that, contrary to respondent's contention, there
is no ``normal practice'' of revoking orders based on three years of
zero deposit rates and certain certifications by respondent. Petitioner
states that when determining the likelihood of resumed dumping in past
cases (e.g., German Brass Sheet, Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel
Pipes and Tubes from Taiwan, 56 FR 8741 (March 1, 1991), and DRAMs from
Korea), the Department has considered factors other than the
respondent's most recent dumping margins and its certification that it
will not resume dumping.
Department's Position: While the Department's substantive
revocation criteria have not changed, the new regulations added a
threshold criterion for revocation proceedings. Specifically, the
Department now requires the company requesting revocation to have sold
the subject merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three
years forming the basis of the request. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii).
Because the threshold requirement of sales in commercial quantities has
not been met in this case, the analysis in these final results does not
address the likelihood issue.
Comment 4: Failure to Revoke the Order Would be in Conflict With the
WTO Agreement
Respondent argues that a revocation of the order is mandated by the
1994 WTO Antidumping Agreement because Article 11.1 of this agreement
states that an antidumping duty ``shall remain in force only as long as
and to the extent necessary to counteract dumping which is causing
injury.'' Respondent supports this position by noting that in DRAMS
from Korea a WTO panel found that the ``continued imposition [of an
antidumping duty] must . . . be essentially dependent on, and therefore
assignable to, a foundation of positive evidence that circumstances
demand it'' (see United States--Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random
Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above From
Korea, WTO Doc. WT/DS99/R (January 29, 1999)) (``DRAMS Panel'').
Respondent further argues that the Department's decision in
[[Page 12981]]
Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada is inconsistent with this panel
finding because it automatically disqualified a respondent from
obtaining revocation without a foundation of positive evidence for
doing so.
Department's Position: The Department's revocation procedures are
fully consistent with Article 11.1. Parties need only demonstrate that
they are no longer dumping while commercially engaged in the U.S.
market over a three year period. The requirement to which respondent
objects merely establishes a reasonable evidentiary threshold. Absent
commercially meaningful sales activity we do not have a sufficient
record to make a reasoned judgement as to revocation. Thus, the
threshold requirement of commercial quantities is necessary,
appropriate, and consistent with our WTO obligations and the DRAMS
Panel decision, because it is an objective condition by which the
Department can make a reasonable determination based on positive
evidence.
Comment 5: Failure To Revoke the Order Would Be Punitive
Respondent argues that failure to revoke would improperly punish
NHCI in light of the Department's determinations that the company has
not been dumping. Moreover, NHCI states that the order and the review
process have imposed a substantial burden on the company.
Department's Position: Application of the regulatory requirements
for revocation is not punitive; rather, these requirements reflect the
Department's view that the actual revocation of an order can only occur
after the collection and analysis of all the relevant information.
While NHCI raised concerns during the proceeding that certain requests
for information were burdensome, we note that NHCI was able to meet all
such requests.
Comment 6: Market Conditions and Trends
Petitioner claims that conditions in the U.S. magnesium market make
dumping more likely because magnesium is a homogenous commodity product
which consumers buy from the seller offering the lowest price.
Petitioner cites to statements by an NHCI official to the effect that
the future magnesium market can be characterized as one of declining
real prices and oversupply. These trends, according to petitioner,
increase the likelihood that NHCI would revert to dumping in order to
boost its sales of the subject merchandise. Petitioner contends that
the magnesium prices quoted by respondent are list prices to which
discounts are applied before the actual transaction price is reached.
In petitioner's view, such list prices have little meaning as
indicators of the actual price level in the market.
Petitioner claims that plans are underway to expand the production
capacity of pure and alloy magnesium, both in Canada and other
countries, and that this increased production will intensify
competition and lead to a continuation of the drop in magnesium prices.
Petitioner also contends that NHCI's new capacity will be utilized for
the production of pure magnesium and it will be directed toward the
U.S. market. Finally, petitioner asserts that it is very likely that
NHCI will have to switch significant production capacity from alloy to
pure magnesium.
Respondent, along with other interested parties, disagrees with
petitioner's description of pricing practices in the magnesium market.
First, respondent says, customers do not always buy from the supplier
offering the lowest price because other factors are also important.
Second, magnesium is not a homogenous product and NHCI competes by
offering high-quality products. Third, respondent disputes petitioner's
allegation that it would have to undercut the prices of other producers
by pointing to the sales it has made in the United States at market
prices in the last three review periods.
According to respondent, U.S. market prices have increased since
the antidumping investigation. While conceding that there have been
moderate adjustments in market prices, respondent argues that in real
terms, magnesium prices increased significantly between 1990 and 1996.
Thus, in respondent's opinion, prices will remain well above the level
where dumping would be inevitable. Respondent further claims that
petitioner has provided the prices of imported Russian and Chinese
magnesium and, according to other interested parties as well, the
pricing practices of these non-Western producers are inappropriate for
comparison to a Western producer like NHCI. Finally, respondent
contends that the price trends provided by petitioner are inconsistent
with those of the U.S. Geological Survey.
Respondent also disputes the notion that there is an oversupply of
pure magnesium, stating that petitioner focuses on the demand/supply
situation in 1996. According to respondent and other interested
parties, the situation changed significantly in 1997 and current supply
conditions are tight with inventories below normal levels. Respondent
further states that demand for pure and alloy magnesium is expected to
increase in both the United States and Canada. Respondent argues that
it is, therefore, not at all certain that a major portion of NHCI's new
capacity will be sold as pure magnesium.
With respect to its expansion plans, respondent maintains that it
has not made a final decision about expanding its magnesium-producing
plant and that petitioner's allegation about a doubling of NHCI's
production capacity, therefore, is wrong. Furthermore, petitioner's
assertion that an expansion by NHCI would lead to a resumption of
dumping is mere speculation, according to respondent.
Respondent dismisses petitioner's allegations regarding other
producers' expansion plans and states that some of these companies have
not yet decided to build new magnesium plants. Finally, respondent
argues, even if all the proposed new plants were built, there is no
basis for petitioner's allegation that this increased competition would
result in dumping because dumping does not occur as a result of lower
prices, but as a result of price discrimination. In this context,
respondent emphasizes that it has signed a certification that it will
not engage in dumping in the future.
Respondent and other interested parties also dispute petitioner's
assertion that NHCI could easily switch its production from alloy to
pure magnesium. Among other things, respondent points to its long-term
supply contracts for alloy as evidence that it cannot easily switch
production to pure magnesium.
Department's Position: Because we have determined that NHCI is not
eligible for revocation, we do not reach the likelihood of future
dumping issue.
Comment 7: Case Precedents Used in the Preliminary Results
Respondent argues that the case precedents on revocation cited by
the Department in its Preliminary Results do not apply to the present
case because the factual situation is different and because the
Department considered mainly negative revocation decisions while it
ignored an affirmative decision.
Department's Position: As explained above, given the Department's
finding that NHCI did not sell in commercial quantities, we do not
reach the likelihood issue.
Comment 8: The Department Can Grant Revocation Over Petitioner's
Objection
Respondent argues that petitioner, Magcorp, cannot purport to
represent the U.S. industry because the
[[Page 12982]]
Department determined in the investigation that petitioner represented
only 22 percent of U.S. magnesium producers. Respondent contends that
Magcorp is merely one producer objecting to the revocation of the order
and that the Department has revoked orders in the past over the
objections of a single producer.
Department's Position: NHCI contested Magcorp's authority to
represent the US industry in its challenge to the original less than
fair value determination but did not prevail. (See Magnesium from
Canada, No. USA-92-1904-03 (August 16, 1993).) Nothing has changed
which would warrant a different conclusion in this proceeding. Because
Magcorp is an interested party, it is entitled to participate and
comment on revocation. Finally, our determination is based on the fact
that NHCI has not met the revocation requirements, not on Magcorp's
objection.
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, we find that the following margin
exists for the period August 1, 1996, through July 31, 1997:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norsk Hydro Canada Inc............... 8/1/96-7/31/97 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days
of the date of publication of this notice. The results of this review
shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries
of merchandise covered by the review and for future deposits of
estimated duties for the manufacturers/exporters subject to this
review. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to
the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following 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 these
final results of this new shipper administrative review, as provided by
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the
reviewed company will be the rate indicated above; (2) for companies
not covered in this review, but covered in previous reviews or the
original less-than-fair-value investigation, 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 this review, a
prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is,
the cash deposit rate will be the most recent rate established for the
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor
the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review or
the original investigation, the cash deposit rate will be the ``all
others'' rate of 21 percent established in the amended final
determination of sales at less than fair value (58 FR 62643 (November
29, 1993)).
These deposit requirements will 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 351.402(f) 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 351.306. Timely written notification of
the 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.
We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 771(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 8, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-6281 Filed 3-15-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
