[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 44 (Monday, March 8, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10986-10990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-5628]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-840]
Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary
Results and Partial Recission of Antidumping Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results and partial rescission of
antidumping duty administrative review of manganese metal from the
People's Republic of China.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We have preliminarily determined that sales by China
Metallurgical Import & Export Hunan Corporation/Hunan Nonferrous Metals
Import & Export Associated Corporation have been made below normal
value during the period of review of February 1, 1997, through January
31, 1998. Because we were unable to verify that China Hunan
International Economic Development Corporation reported all of its U.S.
sales during the period of review, we have preliminarily determined to
apply adverse facts available in calculating the dumping margins for
this exporter of the subject merchandise. If these preliminary results
are adopted in our final results of review, we will instruct the U.S.
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on the difference
between the export price and normal value on all appropriate entries.
We have also determined that the review of China National
Electronics Import and Export Hunan Company and Minmetals Precious &
Rare Minerals Import & Export Corporation should be rescinded.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Campbell or Craig Matney, Office
I, Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202) 482-2239 or (202) 482-1778, 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 351 (April 1998).
Background
On February 6, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on
manganese metal from the People's Republic of China (PRC). See 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). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on
February 9, 1998, Elkem Metals Company and Kerr-McGee Chemical
Corporation (the petitioners) requested that we conduct an
administrative review of this order. On March 23, 1998, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.213(c)(3), we published a notice of initiation of this
antidumping duty administrative review. See 63 FR 13837. On November 9,
1998, we published a notice of extension of time limit for the
preliminary results. See 63 FR 60303.
The Department is conducting this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Act. The period of review (POR) is
February 1, 1997 through January 31, 1998.
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.
Partial Rescission
China National Electronics Import and Export Hunan Company (CEIEC)
notified the Department that it had not made any U.S. sales of subject
merchandise during the POR. Entry data provided by the U.S. Customs
Service confirms that there were no POR entries from CEIEC of manganese
metal.
Minmetals Precious & Rare Minerals Import & Export Corporation
(Minmetals) reported one sale which, based on the date of commercial
invoice, was made during the previous POR but which Minmetals believes
would have entered the United States during the POR. However, the U.S.
Customs data, for both the 1995/97 review period and this review
period, indicates that this sale was never entered into the United
States. Moreover, neither Minmetals nor the Department has been able to
identify
[[Page 10987]]
any other customs entries which apparently correspond to this sale.
Thus, even if the Department were to calculate a margin for Minmetals,
there would be no entry on which to assess the resulting duty.
Therefore, consistent with the Department's practice, we are
rescinding this review with respect to Minmetals and CEIEC. See Silicon
Metal from Brazil; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 61 FR 46763 (September 5, 1996).
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified factor
information provided by Xiang Tan Huan Yu Metallurgical Products Plant
(Huan Yu). We also conducted sales verifications at China Hunan
International Economic Development Corporation (HIED), China
Metallurgical Import & Export Hunan Corporation/Hunan Nonferrous Metals
Import & Export Associated Corporation (CMIECHN/CNIECHN), and
Minmetals. Our verification at each of these companies consisted of
standard verification procedures, including the examination of relevant
sales and financial records and the selection of original documentation
containing relevant information. Our verification results are detailed
in the verification reports on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU)
in room B-099 of the Department's main building.
Separate Rates
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 LTFV determination, we 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-
specific dumping margin. See LTFV Investigation. For this period of
review, HIED, CMIECHN/CNIECHN and Minmetals 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
these companies' exports, in accordance with the criteria identified in
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.
Export Price
For those U.S. sales made by CMIECHN/CNIECHN and which we verified,
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 and
constructed export price treatment was not otherwise indicated.
For these sales, we calculated export price based on the price to
unaffiliated purchasers. We deducted an amount, where appropriate, for
foreign inland freight, ocean freight, and marine insurance.\1\ The
costs for these items were valued in the surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For a detailed discussion of how we derived net export price
and constructed value, see Memorandum to the Case File; Calculations
for the Preliminary Results of Review for CMIECHN/CNIECHN (March 2,
1999), a public version of which is available in room B-099 of the
Department's main building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these verified sales, U.S. Customs entry data for
the POR indicate that many more shipments of manganese metal listing
CMIECHN/CNIECHN as the manufacturer/exporter were entered into the
United States than the number of CMIECHN/CNIECHN's verified U.S.
sales.\2\ The verified sales represent less than five percent of the
total value of POR entries listing CMIECHN/CNIECHN as the manufacturer/
exporter. Based upon our verification of CMIECHN/CNIECHN's total U.S.
sales, we have preliminarily determined that these additional entries
are not U.S. sales by CMIECHN/CNIECHN for the purposes of this review.
We will, however, continue to examine the circumstances surrounding
these entries identifying CMIECHN/CNIECHN as the exporter. We note that
CMIECHN/CNIECHN has asked the U.S. Customs Service to investigate
potential customs fraud involving entries of manganese metal during the
POR. We will reconsider, in the final results of review, our
preliminary determination that CMIECHN/CNIECHN was not the exporter of
these additional entries in the event that any substantive new
information on the matter, including any potential determination by the
Customs Service regarding alleged customs fraud, becomes available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Department initially requested this Customs data to
verify the claims of non-shipment by CEIEC (see Partial Rescission
section above). This request for entry data was also responsive to
concerns expressed by the petitioners that many more shipments of
manganese metal had entered the United States during the POR than
were reported as sales by the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given our preliminary determination that these additional entries
are not CMIECHN/CNIECHN sales for the purposes of this review, we have
not calculated an export price for these entries. Also, for the reasons
enumerated in the Use of Facts Otherwise Available section below, we
likewise have not calculated an export price for HIED's sales.
Normal Value
1. Non-Market-Economy Status
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
[[Page 10988]]
review. Furthermore, available 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. 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.
2. Surrogate-Country Selection
In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act and section
351.408(b) of our regulations, we preliminarily determine that India is
comparable to the PRC. In addition, India is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise. Therefore, for this review, we have selected
India as the surrogate country 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; Non-Market-Economy Status and Surrogate Country Selection
(June 23, 1998), a public copy of which is available in the Central
Records Unit.)
3. Factors-of-Production Valuation
For purposes of calculating NV, we valued PRC factors of
production, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. Factors of
production include but are not limited to the following elements: (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 examining potential 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. For a more detailed
explanation of the methodology used in calculating various surrogate
values, see Memorandum to the File from Case Team; Calculations for the
Preliminary Results (March 2, 1999). In accordance with this
methodology, we have valued the factors as described below.
We valued manganese ore using a June 1998 export price quote (in
U.S. dollars) from a Brazilian manganese mine for manganese carbonate
ore. Consistent with our methodology used in the first administrative
review of the order on manganese metal from the PRC, this price was
adjusted to reflect the decline in manganese ore world prices since the
POR. See Manganese Metal from the PRC; Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 12440,
12442 (March 13, 1998). We adjusted this price further to account for
the reported manganese content of the ore used in the PRC manufacture
of the subject merchandise and to account for the differences in
transportation distances.
To value various process chemicals used in the production of
manganese metal, we used prices obtained from the following Indian
sources: Indian Chemical Weekly (February 1997 through November 1997);
the Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of India, Volume II--Imports
(February through May 1997) (Import Statistics); price quotes from
Indian chemicals producers, and the 1995 Indian Minerals Yearbook
(IMY). Where necessary, we adjusted these values to reflect inflation
up to the POR using an Indian WPI published by the International
Monetary Fund (IMF). Additionally, we adjusted these values, where
appropriate, to account for differences in chemical content and to
account for freight costs incurred between the suppliers and manganese
metal producers.
To value the labor input, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we
used the regression-based estimated wage rate for the PRC as calculated
by the Department.
For selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), factory
overhead, and profit values, we used information from the Reserve Bank
of India Bulletin (January 1997) for the Indian industrial grouping
``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 and energy. Using
the same source, we also calculated the SG&A expense as a percentage of
the cost of materials, energy and factory overhead and profit as a
percentage of the cost of production (i.e., materials, energy, labor,
factory overhead and SG&A).
For most packing materials values, we used per-unit values based on
the data in the Import Statistics. For iron drums, however, we used a
price quote from an Indian manufacturer rather than a value from the
Import Statistics because the quoted price was for the appropriate type
of container used, whereas the 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. To value truck freight, we used a price quotation from
an Indian freight provider. Because this quote was for a period
subsequent to the POR, we deflated the value back to the POR using WPI
published by the IMF.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party
(1) withholds information that has been requested by the Department,
(2) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form
requested, (3) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping
statute, or (4) provides information that cannot be verified, the
Department shall use, subject to section 782(d), facts available in
reaching the applicable determination. While section 782(d) of the Act
provides certain conditions that must be satisfied before the
Department may disregard all or part of the information submitted by a
respondent, these conditions only apply when the information submitted
can be verified and the interested parties have acted to the best of
their abilities. See section 782(e) of the Act.
1. Application of Facts Available
We preliminarily determine that, in accordance with sections
776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act, the use of facts otherwise available,
adverse to the company, is appropriate for HIED because its sales data
could not be verified and because it did not cooperate to the best of
its ability in the course of this review. These reasons are detailed
below.
On August 13, 1998, the Department provided HIED with Customs
Service data showing the POR entries into the United States of
manganese metal from the PRC indicating HIED as the shipper. In an
accompanying letter we noted that these entries differed in material
ways from HIED's reported U.S. sales and requested that HIED comment on
this inconsistency. HIED replied that its reported sales were correct
and could be reconciled with its books. HIED further noted that any
inconsistencies were
[[Page 10989]]
likely due to ``fraudulent schemes'' on the part of other exporters to
export subject merchandise into the United States under the most
favorable circumstances.
The Department subsequently conducted a verification of HIED's
reported sales. During the course of verification, we encountered
numerous inconsistencies and delays, and certain documents were not
available. For instance, HIED officials' explanation of the company's
relationship to its U.S. customer was, in general, incongruous and
incomplete and, at times, entirely contrary to what other company
officials had stated previously. Moreover, although company officials
claimed initially that only one of HIED's departments and one of its
affiliates made sales of manganese metal during the POR, Department
officials conducting the verification (the Verification Team)
subsequently identified accounting records which indicated that at
least one additional business unit may also have been involved in
selling manganese metal. Furthermore, the Verification Team was unable
to verify the total quantity and value of subject merchandise sold by
HIED and its affiliates because certain intermediate accounting records
could not be reconciled to source data or to the financial statements.
Verification of the completeness of HIED's sales reporting was also
seriously hindered by the Verification Team's inability to review
several of the sales and accounting records reportedly maintained by
HIED. In some cases, the source documentation requested by the
Department to verify total sales was reportedly discarded prior to
verification. Company officials offered no explanation as to why they
were unable to retrieve other sales and accounting records, maintained
at the company headquarters, for the majority of HIED's sales
departments. Sales and accounting records for HIED's affiliates,
including those selling manganese metal, were likewise not available
though, according to HIED officials, this was because officials were
unwilling to travel to other locations in the PRC where the documents
were kept.
There were many significant delays in the verification process as a
result of sorting through conflicting statements by officials and of
the difficulty in locating documents which were explicitly requested by
the Department in the verification outline sent prior to the
verification. Despite the fact that the verification was extended--at
the Department's initiative-- for an additional half day, several
important documents were not presented to the Verification Team until
near or at the end of verification, preventing an adequate review of
important data.
Subsequent to verification, the Department received from the
Customs Service supporting documentation (e.g., Customs Form 7501,
commercial invoices, packing lists) filed by the U.S. importer upon
entering the subject merchandise into the United States for several of
the entries which appeared in the U.S. Customs data. The supporting
documentation for several entries listed in the U.S. Customs data
identified HIED clearly as the actual exporter of the subject
merchandise. However, for some of these entries there were no
corresponding sales listed in HIED's U.S. sales listing.
These numerous inconsistencies and delays, and the unavailability
of documentation, taken together, constitute a verification failure
under section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. Moreover, based on information
obtained from the Customs Service, we have determined that HIED failed
to report sales it made to the United States. The Department has,
therefore, determined that, because HIED's reported sales data could
not be verified and, generally, the credibility of the information
contained in HIED's questionnaire responses could not be established,
section 776(a) of the Act requires the Department to disregard HIED's
questionnaire responses and apply facts available.
2. Use of Adverse Facts Available
In selecting from among the facts available, section 776(b) of the
Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference if the
Department finds that a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103rd
Cong., 2d sess. 870 at 870 (1994). To examine whether the respondent
``cooperated'' by ``acting to the best of its ability'' under section
776(b) of the Act, the Department considers, inter alia, the accuracy
and completeness of submitted information and whether the respondent
has hindered the calculation of accurate dumping margins. See, e.g.,
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819-
53820 (October 16, 1997).
As discussed above, HIED failed to provide much of the
documentation, requested by the Verification Team, necessary to verify
HIED's sales. Moreover, various company officials' statements were
contradictory on several points central to a successful verification.
Furthermore, the Department identified unreported sales of subject
merchandise by HIED which the company knew, or should have known,
should have been properly included in the reported U.S. sales list.
Thus, we have determined that HIED withheld information we requested
and significantly impeded the antidumping proceeding.
We have, therefore, determined that HIED has not acted to the best
of its ability to comply with our requests for information.
Accordingly, consistent with section 776(b) of the Act, we have applied
adverse facts available to this company.
3. Corroboration of Secondary Information
In this review, we are using as adverse facts available the PRC-
wide rate (143.32 percent) determined for non-responding exporters
involved in the LTFV Investigation. This margin represents the highest
margin in the petition, as modified by the Department for the purposes
of initiation. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation:
Manganese Metal from the PRC, 59 FR 61869 (December 2, 1994) (LTFV
Initiation).
Information derived from the petition constitutes secondary
information within the meaning of the SAA. See SAA at 870. Section
776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate secondary information from independent sources
reasonably at its disposal. The SAA provides that ``corroborate'' means
that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information
to be used has probative value. The SAA at 870, however, states further
that ``the fact that corroboration may not be practicable in a given
circumstance will not prevent the agencies from applying an adverse
inference.'' In addition, the SAA, at 869, emphasizes that the
Department need not prove that the facts available are the best
alternative information.
To corroborate secondary information, to the extent practicable the
Department will examine the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used. To examine the reliability of margins in the
petition, we examine whether, based on available evidence, those
margins reasonably reflect a level of dumping that may have occurred
during the period of investigation by any firm, including those that
did not provide us with usable information. This generally consists of
examining, to the extent practicable, whether the significant
[[Page 10990]]
elements used to derive the petition margins, or the resulting margins,
are supported by independent sources. With respect to the relevance
aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information
reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that
would render a margin not relevant. Where circumstances indicate that
the selected margin may not be relevant, the Department will attempt to
find a more appropriate basis for facts available. See, e.g., Fresh Cut
Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department
disregarded the highest margin as best information available because
the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business
expense resulting in an unusually high margin).
For the initiation of the investigation, based on an analysis of
the petition and a subsequent supplement to the petition, the
Department modified the dumping margin contained in the petition. See
LTFV Initiation at 61870. In the petition, the U.S. price was based on
price quotations obtained for manganese from the PRC during December
1993 through May 1994. The factors of production were valued, where
possible, using publicly available published information for India.
Where Indian values were not available, the petitioners used data based
on their own costs. For the initiation, however, the Department
disallowed all factors valued by using the petitioners' own costs.
Instead, we recalculated factory overhead and depreciation expenses
using the statistics in the Reserve Bank of India Bulletin (December
1992), a publicly available and independent source used in other
investigations of imports from the PRC. We also recalculated the
valuation of several process chemicals using data from the independent
source Chemical Marketing Reporter. Furthermore, we revalued
electricity costs using World Bank data on electricity rates for
industrial users in Indonesia, an appropriate surrogate country at a
comparable level of economic development to the PRC.
We find, therefore, for the purpose of these preliminary results
that the PRC-wide margin established in the LTFV Investigation is
reliable. As there is no information on the record of this review that
demonstrates that the rate selected is not an appropriate adverse facts
available rate for HIED, we determine that this rate has probative
value and, therefore, is an appropriate basis for facts otherwise
available.
Preliminary Results of the Review
We hereby determine that the following weighted-average margins
exist for the period February 1, 1997, through January 31, 1998:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CMIECHN/CNIECHN............................................ 6.08
HIED....................................................... 143.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we are rescinding the review with respect to CEIEC and
Minmetals, the respective company-specific rates for these companies
remain unchanged.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held
approximately 37 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 35 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.
Assessment and Cash Deposit Rates
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
In order to assess duties on appropriate entries as a result of
this review, we have calculated entry-specific duty assessment rates
based on the ratio of the amount of duty calculated for each of
CMIECHN/CNIECHN's verified sales during the POR to the total entered
value of the corresponding entry. The Department will instruct the
Customs Service to assess these rates only on those entries which
correspond to sales verified by the Department as having been made
directly by CMIECHN/CNIECHN.
As discussed in the Export Price section above, however, the
Customs entry data for the POR indicates that many more shipments of
manganese metal listing CMIECHN/CNIECHN as the manufacturer/exporter
were entered into the United States than the number of POR sales
reported by CMIECHN/CNIECHN. On those entries listing CMIECHN/CNIECHN
as the manufacturer/exporter but for which there are no corresponding
verified sales, the Department will instruct the Customs Service to
assess the PRC-wide rate of 143.32 percent. The Department will
likewise instruct the Customs Service to assess the facts available
rate, also 143.32 percent, on all POR entries from HIED.
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 HIED and
CMIECHN/CNIECHN, the cash deposit rate 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 or
entries to the United States during the POR, the rates will continue to
be 5.88 percent and 11.77 percent, respectively (these are 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 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.
We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 1, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-5628 Filed 3-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
