[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15770-15772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8824]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-834-805]
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Beryllium Metal and
High Beryllium Alloys From Kazakhstan
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Grebasch at (202) 482-3773 or
Erik Warga at (202) 482-0922, Office of Antidumping Investigations,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
Initiation of Investigation
The Applicable Statute
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 Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'') by
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA'').
The Petition
On March 14, 1996, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
received a petition filed in proper form by Brush Wellman Inc.
(``petitioner''), a domestic producer of beryllium metal and high
beryllium alloys (``beryllium''). The Department received supplemental
information to the petition on March 28, and March 29, and April 1,
1996.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, petitioner alleges
that imports of beryllium from Kazakhstan are being, or are likely to
be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the
meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially
injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Petitioner claims that it has standing to file the petition because
it is an interested party, as defined under section 771(9)(C) of the
Act.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act requires the Department to
determine, prior to the initiation of an investigation, that a minimum
percentage of the domestic industry
[[Page 15771]]
supports an antidumping petition. A petition meets these minimum
requirements if the domestic producers or workers who support the
petition account for (1) at least 25 percent of the total production of
the domestic like product; and (2) more than 50 percent of the
production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the
industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition.
A review of the production data provided in the petition and other
information readily available to the Department indicates that
petitioner accounts for more than 50 percent of the total production of
the domestic like product thus meeting the standard of 732(c)(4)(A) and
requiring no further action by the Department pursuant to 732(c)(4)(D).
Accordingly, the Department determines that the petition is supported
by the domestic industry.
Scope of the Investigation
The scope of this investigation is beryllium metal and high
beryllium alloys with a beryllium content equal to or greater than 30
percent by weight, whether in ingot, billet, powder, block, lump,
chunk, blank, or other semifinished form. These are intermediate or
semifinished products that require further machining, casting and/or
fabricating into sheet, extrusions, forgings or other shapes in order
to meet the specifications of the end user. Beryllium and high
beryllium alloys within the scope of this investigation are
classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) 8112.11.6000, 8112.11.3000, 7601.20.9075, and 7601.20.9090.
Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs
purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is
dispositive.
Export Price
Petitioner based export price on FAS Customs values reported in
1995 Bureau of Census data for HTS categories 8112.11.3000 (waste and
scrap) and 8112.11.6000 (unwrought beryllium and beryllium powder). For
purposes of this initiation, we have disallowed the data regarding the
importation of waste and scrap because the majority of the shipment in
question was non-subject merchandise.
Normal Value
Petitioner asserts that Kazakhstan is a non-market economy country
(NME) within the meaning of sections 771(18) of the Act. In previous
investigations, the Department has determined that Kazakhstan is an
NME, and in accordance with section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act, the
presumption of NME status continues for the initiation of this
investigation. See, e.g., Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Ferrosilicon from Kazakhstan and Ukraine; and Postponement
of Final Determination; Ferrosilicon from the Russian Federation, 58 FR
13050 (March 9, 1993). Accordingly, the normal value of the product
should be based on the producer's factors of production, valued in a
surrogate market economy country in accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act.
In the course of this investigation, all parties will have the
opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of
Kazakhstan's NME status and the granting of separate rates to
individual exporters. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the PRC, 59 FR 22585 (May 2,
1994).
It is our practice in NME cases to calculate NV based on the
factors of production of those factories that produced the subject
merchandise (in this case, beryllium) sold to the United States during
the period of investigation.
Petitioner based the Kazak producers' factors of production as
defined by section 773(c)(3) of the Act (raw materials, labor, energy
and capital cost) for beryllium on petitioner's own usage amounts,
adjusted for known differences in the production processes. In
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, petitioner valued these
factors, where possible, on publicly available published Brazilian
data. Where this data was unavailable, petitioner used other acceptable
sources of information.
Petitioner states that because the per capita GNP of Brazil and
Kazakstan are relatively close, the two countries may be considered
economically comparable. Further, petitioner has stated that while
Brazil does not produce beryllium, it does produce beryl ore, a major
input of beryllium. Based on these factors, petitioner argued that
Brazil is an acceptable surrogate country, in accordance with 773(c)(4)
of the Act, because its level of economic development is comparable to
that of Kazakstan and Brazil is a significant producer of comparable
merchandise.
Petitioner was unable to find data on factory overhead from an
appropriate industry in Brazil; however, petitioner states that the
first half of the production process for beryllium is similar to the
production of uranium from ore. Therefore, petitioner used data for a
Canadian uranium producer from the public record of the antidumping
proceeding involving uranium from Kazakstan and other former USSR
countries (See Antidumping; Uranium from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan; Suspension of
Investigations and Amendment of Preliminary Determinations (57 FR
49220, October 30, 1992)) to value overhead. With respect to general
expenses, petitioner was unable to obtain information regarding the
general expenses from any closely related industry (e.g., beryllium or
uranium). Therefore, petitioner has used information on a Brazilian
silicomanganese company from the record of the antidumping duty
proceeding involving silicomanganese from Brazil (Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicomanganese From
Brazil (59 FR 55432, November 7, 1994)) as the only information
reasonably available.
Petitioner based profit incorrectly on the statutory eight percent
minimum contained in the pre-URAA laws. This provision was specifically
deleted from the URAA. Petitioner provided no reasonable grounds for
the Department to assume that a figure of eight percent for profit is
appropriate. Because petitioner has provided no other information, we
have disallowed this figure for purposes of this initiation.
Based on comparisons of EP to the factors of production, the
calculated dumping margin for beryllium from Kazakstan, after
adjustments made by the Department, is 22.83 percent.
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by petitioner, there is reason to
believe that imports of beryllium from Kazakstan are being, or are
likely to be, sold at less than fair value.
Initiation of Investigation
We have examined the petition on beryllium and have found that it
meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act, including the
requirements concerning allegations of the material injury or threat of
material injury to the domestic producers of a domestic like product by
reason of the complained-of imports, allegedly sold at less than fair
value. Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping duty investigation
to determine whether imports of beryllium from Kazakstan are being, or
are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value.
Unless extended, we will make our preliminary determination by August
21, 1996.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the
[[Page 15772]]
public version of the petition has been provided to the representatives
of the government of Kazakstan. We will attempt to provide a copy of
the public version of the petition to the exporter named in the
petition.
International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
732(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will determine by April 28, 1996, whether there is a
reasonable indication that imports of beryllium from Kazakstan are
causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a
U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will result in the
investigation being terminated; otherwise, the investigation will
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
Dated: April 3, 1996.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Investigations.
[FR Doc. 96-8824 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
