[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48601-48606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24469]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-821-803]
Titanium Sponge From the Russian Federation; Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 12, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the
antidumping finding on titanium sponge from the Russian Federation
(Russia). This notice of final results covers the review period of
August 1, 1995 through July 31, 1996. This review covers one
manufacturer, AVISMA Titanium-Magnesium Works (AVISMA), and three
trading companies, Interlink Metals & Chemicals, S.A. (Interlink), TMC
Trading International, Ltd. (TMC), and Cometals, Inc. (Cometals). We
gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary
results. We received comments from AVISMA, Interlink, TMC, and Titanium
Metals Corporation (TIMET), a petitioner. A hearing was held on June
30, 1997 with both public and closed sessions. Based on our analysis of
these comments, we have not changed the final results from those
presented in the preliminary results of review.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 16, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Terpstra or Mark Manning, Office
of AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 4, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:
[[Page 48602]]
(202) 482-3965 and 482-3936 respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
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). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the
regulations as codified at 19 CFR part 353 (1997).
Background
On May 12, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register
(62 FR 25920) the preliminary results of the 1995-1996 administrative
review of the antidumping finding on titanium sponge from Russia (33 FR
12138, August 28, 1968). This notice of final results covers the review
period for August 1, 1995 through July 31, 1996, covering one
manufacturer, AVISMA, and three trading companies, Interlink, TMC, and
Cometals. The Department has conducted this review in accordance with
section 751 of the Act.
Scope of the Review
The product covered by this administrative review is titanium
sponge from Russia. Titanium sponge is chiefly used for aerospace
vehicles, specifically, in 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
item number is provided for convenience and Customs' purposes. The
written description remains dispositive as to the scope of the product
coverage.
The review period (POR) is August 1, 1995 through July 31, 1996,
covering one manufacturer, AVISMA, and three trading companies,
Interlink, TMC, and Cometals.
Analysis of Comments Received
Comment 1: Application of Facts Available Against TMC
Petitioner argues that TMC has not acted to the best of its ability
to comply with the Department's requests for information. Petitioner
states, ``from the inception of the administrative review, TMC has
orchestrated a prolonged deception in each of its responses, concerning
its activities and the existence of affiliated parties.'' In addition,
petitioner claims that TMC's submissions are ``only a partial
accounting of its history and affiliations.'' Therefore, petitioner
argues that the application of adverse facts available to TMC is
warranted.
Petitioner argues that TMC is a false front. Petitioner claims that
TMC is trying to have the Department believe that AVISMA would abandon
experienced trading companies for TMC, which, petitioner claims, does
not have experience in or knowledge of the worldwide titanium market.
In addition, petitioner argues that TMC is not operated similar to any
other company in the titanium sponge industry. For example, petitioner
claims that TMC's reported sales and profit are not representative of a
normal, arm's-length trading company being supplied by an unaffiliated
producer. Petitioner points to the information on the record which
demonstrates that TMC's profit is higher than the average commission
income received by trading companies in the titanium sponge industry.
To support its argument that TMC is misrepresenting itself,
petitioner points out that TMC only began providing more information on
its activities, ownership, and affiliation after the deadline for
submitting new information had expired. Petitioner asserts that the
deadline for the submission for new information was March 16, 1997, in
accordance with 19 CFR 353.31(a)(ii). Petitioner argues that the
Department should reject TMC's April 3, 1997 submission, which
petitioner argues provides new information that was not verified by the
Department because it was provided on the last day of verification.
Petitioner argues that all changes to submissions should be presented
at the beginning of verification, which should have included the
information in TMC's April 3, 1997 submission. Petitioner asserts that
the information provided in this submission is ``new information and
worthless for the purpose of determining affiliation'' and ``not
susceptible to verification.'' Petitioner claims that none of these
submissions were in response to a Departmental query, but new
information submitted on its own. At a minimum, petitioner argues that
the Department should return and disregard all of TMC's submissions
dated after March 16, 1997. Also included in these untimely
submissions, are TMC's audited financial statements, which were
submitted on March 28, 1997.
Petitioner states that it believes that AVISMA controls and is
affiliated with TMC and that TMC tried to manipulate the review process
to prevent the Department from learning of this affiliation in order
for AVISMA to indirectly obtain a zero dumping margin. Petitioner
claims that the original questionnaire requested that TMC list all
affiliated companies and TMC failed to disclose several affiliated
parties. Given another opportunity through its supplemental
questionnaires, petitioner claims that TMC still failed to fully
disclose its affiliated companies, and TMC falsely certified that its
responses were complete and accurate. Petitioner characterizes TMC as
reluctantly deciding to disclose the true owner(s) of TMC once it
realized that the Department would be questioning the distribution of
TMC's profits on the last day of verification. Petitioner alleges that
TMC's late disclosure of this owner indicates that TMC must believe
that this disclosure is detrimental to its position.
Petitioner states that the Department has two choices for adverse
facts available. We could either use the ``All Others'' rate of 83.96
percent or calculate a new rate by classifying TMC's dividend/royalty
as a direct expense and allocate it only to the merchandise sold to the
U.S. during the period of review. Finally, petitioner argues that TMC
did not accurately and completely answer the questionnaire in a timely
manner to the best of its ability.
Petitioner claims that the Department is unable to make a decision
on affiliation due to the incomplete information on the record.
Petitioner asserts that, ``the Department cannot simply assume benign
neglect on TMC's part or that the omissions led to harmless error.
Given the still incomplete record in this case, it is impossible to
discern the extent to which TMC has prejudiced the final results. These
problems render all of TMC's responses unreliable.'' Petitioner argues
that if the Department chooses to use TMC responses, it would set a
precedent for future respondents that if they fail to provide timely,
complete, and accurate responses, there should be ``no fear of
sanction.'' Therefore, petitioner argues that the evidence supports
applying adverse facts available because TMC failed to cooperate with
the Department and did not act to the best of its ability to comply
with the Department's requests for information.
TMC argues that the application of facts available is unwarranted
because of TMC's cooperation and timeliness in responding to the
Department's requests for information and at verification.
With regard to timeliness, TMC claims that it responded to the
[[Page 48603]]
Department's initial and six supplemental questionnaires within the
deadlines established by the Department and submitted additional
factual information within the 180-day regulatory deadline. In
addition, TMC claims that it submitted its audited financial statements
as soon as the company's first audit was completed, in advance of
verification. TMC points out that the Department's verification report
reveals ``no material inaccuracies in the information submitted by TMC,
nor does it indicate that there were any items that could not be
verified.''
TMC cites CAFC court rulings which rule that facts available may be
warranted when a large portion of the questionnaire response is
submitted past the Department's deadline or when the respondent did not
comply with a Department's request for information. See Ansaldo
Componenti S.p.A. v. U.S., 628 F.Supp. 198, 205 (CIT 1986); Olympic
Adhesives, Inc. v. U.S., 708 F.Supp. 344 (CIT 1989), rev'd, 899 F.2d
1565 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Daewoo Elec. Co. v. U.S., 712 F.Supp. 931, 944
(CIT 1989). TMC states that its actions are consistent with the CAFC
court rulings in that facts available are not justified in this case.
TMC also argues that TIMET had several opportunities to comment on
any inadequacies found in TMC's supplemental questionnaire responses
and in the verification report, but chose not to comment.
TMC asserts that TIMET's argument that the Department should reject
TMC's March 5, 1997 and April 3, 1997 submissions because they are
untimely is misplaced. First, TMC claims that it submitted the April 3,
1997 by the Department's established deadline and during, not after,
verification, stating that verification took place April 3-4, 1997
(noting a typographical error in the verification report). In addition,
TMC's March 5, 1997 submission was submitted well within the 180-day
deadline established by the Department for supplemental submissions.
TMC also argues that information presented in its April 3, 1997
submission was verified. TMC argues that, at verification, the
Department requested information regarding TMC's affiliations, which
included the information contained in TMC's April 3, 1997 submission.
TMC asserts that the Department is not required to verify every piece
of information, as stated in 19 CFR 353.36(c).
TMC argues that petitioner inaccurately characterizes TMC's
experience in the titanium sponge industry and AVISMA's rationale for
hiring TMC as its distributor for marketing titanium sponge. In
addition, TMC argues that petitioner's suggestion that the Department
could classify TMC's dividend/royalty as a direct expense as adverse
facts available is not consistent with Departmental practice. TMC
asserts that, in these instances, the Department's practice is ``to
assume related party payments are not at arm's length and,
consequently, not adjust for them in its antidumping calculations.''
See Outokumpu Copper Rolled Products AB v. U.S., 850 F.Supp. 16, 22
(CIT 1994).
TMC argues that TIMET's arguments about TMC's profits are
inappropriate and ``should not be viewed as signifying anything other
than a well-run company.'' TMC characterizes TIMET's comparison of
TMC's profits to those of a commission agent, who takes no risk, as
unrealistic and inappropriate.
Finally, TMC argues that if the Department determines that TMC and
AVISMA are affiliated, the final results would not change, citing the
Department's discussion of affiliation in the preliminary results. TMC
points out that TIMET has not challenged this aspect of the preliminary
results.
Department's Position
While we are concerned that TMC did not fully disclose the nature
of its relationship to AVISMA in its initial questionnaire responses,
we have determined that this deficiency did not materially impair our
review in this case. Therefore, we have not used adverse facts
available against TMC.
In its response to our first questionnaire, TMC stated that it is a
wholly owned subsidiary of TMC (Holdings), Limited, whose share capital
is owned by Valmet S.A. The ultimate parent of Valmet S.A. is Valmet
Group Limited. Bank Menatep of Russia is a minority shareholder of
Valmet Group Limited. We note and are concerned by TMC's failure to
initially disclose, in response to our questionnaire, the fact that
Bank Menatep has a major presence on AVISMA's board of directors. Such
facts clearly are material to our consideration of the nature of any
relationship between TMC and AVISMA. Although we did not specifically
ask TMC whether any of its parent companies were affiliated with
AVISMA, either directly or indirectly through another affiliated
company, we did ask questions aimed at obtaining a complete picture of
the relationship between TMC and AVISMA. To the extent TMC was aware
that Bank Menatep was affiliated with AVISMA and failed to report it,
we would view that as impeding this review. On the other hand, the
record of this case is not clear on this point. The questions asked did
not specifically seek this information; rather, the questions focused
on the structure and operations of Valmet Group Ltd., Valmet S.A., and
TMC. Moreover, the record of this case indicates that Bank Menatep is a
minority non-controlling shareholder of Valmet Group Limited. As such,
it is not clear how much TMC knew or should have known about Bank
Menatep's various operations. Indeed, Bank Menatep's financial
statement, later submitted by TMC, shows it to be a large commercial
bank with extensive holdings in numerous entities. Additionally, as
discussed below, TMC's substantial cooperation and compliance with our
numerous questionnaires indicate that rejecting TMC's response in toto
is not warranted. Therefore, on balance, we do not believe it
reasonable to reject TMC's entire response. We also note that, as
stated in the preliminary results, we do not believe it is necessary to
address this issue of possible affiliation between TMC and AVISMA for
purposes of this review because the determination will not affect our
analysis. We must rely on TMC's sales to the United States regardless
of a determination on affiliation.
With regard to the timeliness of TMC's questionnaire responses and
submissions, we believe that TMC has provided its submissions in a
timely manner because its submissions were provided earlier than the
180-day regulatory deadline for the submission of new information, in
accordance with 19 CFR 353.31(a)(ii) (i.e., March 17, 1997), and its
questionnaire responses were submitted within deadlines established by
the Department. The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 353.31(b) state
that the Department ``may request any person to submit factual
information at any time during a proceeding'' (emphasis added). TMC's
April 3, 1997 submission was provided on the first day of verification
in response to the Department's April 1, 1997 supplemental
questionnaire. Therefore, at verification, we accepted the new
information provided in TMC's April 3, 1997 submission because it was
requested by the Department at a previous date.
In addition, TMC cooperated with the Department's requests for
information and at verification. As noted by TMC, the Department's
April 16, 1997 verification report does not refer to any lack of
cooperation on the part of TMC when questioned on its affiliations.
With regard to whether or not the information in TMC's April 3,
1997 submission was verified, we disagree
[[Page 48604]]
with the petitioner. As the verification report indicates, TMC's
responses were verified without any major discrepancies. As a normal
part of our verification procedures, and in particular because of the
question of affiliation in this case, we examined TMC's corporate
structure and the nature of any affiliation with other partners in
great detail. This exercise necessarily involves asking for and
collecting additional support documentation. Given the completeness and
success of the verification, and the fact that the collected
information did not materially affect our analysis, we chose not to
visit another location to further evaluate this matter.
Petitioner's speculations on the existence of an affiliation
between AVISMA and TMC are not relevant to this proceeding. The
Department issued several supplemental questionnaires on this issue and
analyzed each submission with regard to whether further information
should be requested. In addition, at verification, we examined
documents relevant to the affiliation issue, and noted at the time that
``we found no documentation that would lead us to believe that AVISMA
and TMC have other dealings besides what was presented in its
response.'' Id. at 4. Should this question become relevant in our
analysis in future administrative reviews, we may further examine the
issue of affiliation between TMC and AVISMA. For purposes of this
review, the information on the record indicates that an affiliation
determination is not relevant to our determination of the dumping
margins for TMC and AVISMA. As stated in our preliminary results,
because AVISMA did not export to the United States and did not have
knowledge of the ultimate destination of the merchandise sold through
TMC, ``all relevant sales to the United States are captured in our
analysis without making an affiliation determination.'' See Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Titanium Sponge from
the Russian Federation, 62 FR 25920, 25921 (May 12, 1997).
Comment 2: Reported Entered Values
Petitioner alleges that Interlink may have used the price that
Interlink paid to AVISMA as the entered value of the imported titanium
sponge reported to the U.S. Customs Service (Customs). Petitioner
states that the reported entered values are not equivalent to the gross
sales prices less moving expenses. Petitioner claims that Interlink
appears to have undervalued its entries and, therefore, underpaid the
dumping cash deposits and Customs duties.
If this is the case, petitioner argues that this price may not be
used because the merchandise was not clearly destined for export to the
United States (given that AVISMA did not have knowledge of the final
destination of the merchandise), as stated in Nissho Iwai decision. See
Nissho Iwai American Corp. v. U.S., 982 F.2d 505,509 (Fed.Cir. 1992).
Therefore, petitioner states that AVISMA-Interlink sales may not be
used as the basis for entered values.
AVISMA and Interlink argue that this issue was raised in the last
administrative review and concerns Interlink and Customs, not the
Department or TIMET. AVISMA and Interlink report that Interlink is
working with Customs, ``the United States government agency that is, by
law, responsible for these matters, to resolve any issues related to
the proper valuation of consumption entries.''
Department's Position
We agree with AVISMA and Interlink that any questions concerning
the proper valuation of consumption entries is a matter to be resolved
by the Customs Service. The Department has conveyed petitioner's
allegations to Customs.
Regarding the appropriate basis for export price in this review,
our concern is that we have the correct sales price (i.e., the price
between the exporter who had knowledge that the shipment was destined
to the U.S. and the first unaffiliated U.S. customer). The record of
this case indicates that AVISMA did not have prior knowledge that the
final destination of the shipment in question was the United States.
Because there is no affiliation between Interlink and the U.S.
customer, we are satisfied that the reported sales price is the
appropriate basis for the export price.
Comment 3: Interlink's U.S. Sales
Petitioner alleges that the Interlink sales used in the calculation
of its dumping margin are not bona fide sales for commercial purposes
and should be disregarded. Petitioner alleges that Interlink sales
which entered the United States under temporary importation bonds
(TIBs) are priced lower than the Interlink sales entered for
consumption which are used to calculate the dumping margin. In
addition, petitioner states that these sales are considerably higher
than U.S. and world prices of titanium sponge for the review period.
Petitioner states that the Department has disregarded sales when the
prices were significantly higher than world market prices and it
believed that the respondent had artificially set prices. See Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Manganese Metal
from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 56045, 56046 (November 6,
1995); Chang Tieh Industry Co., Ltd. v. U.S., 840 F.Supp. 141, 146 (CIT
1993). Insofar as petitioner argues that Interlink's sales used to
calculate the dumping margin were not made on commercial terms, it
asserts that Interlink's sales should be disregarded and the Department
should apply adverse facts available as Interlink's dumping margin.
AVISMA and Interlink disagree with petitioner's characterization of
Interlink's sales. AVISMA and Interlink argue that the sales in
question were made on different sales terms than sales that entered
under TIBs (i.e., Interlink assumed responsibility for all expenses and
was the importer of record). AVISMA and Interlink argue that the sales
entered under TIBs were sold on an ``in warehouse in Europe'' basis,
where the customer took possession in Europe and was responsible for
payment for all additional movement expenses, including the movement
expenses to the United States.
Department's Position
We disagree with petitioner that there is a basis for disregarding
the sales in question. There is no evidence that these sales involve
``artificially set prices.'' Moreover, it is apparent that the higher
prices merely reflect the fact that the sales in question were made on
different terms of sale. Interlink submitted the sales and entry
documentation for the sales in question in response to the Department's
February 4, 1997 request. See Letter from Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering to
Robert S. LaRussa, February 11, 1997. We note that the documentation
reports the price charged to Interlink's customer and the sales terms
are reported as ``delivered, duty paid.'' In addition, the Customs
entry document reports that Interlink paid the 83.96 percent
antidumping cash deposit for the sales in question. The customs duty
and antidumping cash deposit account for much of the difference between
these prices and the ``in warehouse in Europe'' price level. See
Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results of 1995/1996 Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Finding of Titanium Sponge from the Russian
Federation for further discussion of our analysis.
Comment 4: Future Entries of Subject Merchandise
Petitioner argues that the Department should establish a single
cash deposit rate for all respondents in this review. Although the
Department did not
[[Page 48605]]
establish a single rate in the 1994/1995 review, petitioner argues that
the circumstances differ in this review because AVISMA changed its
selling practices and made sales under this new sales structure, and
the record states that TMC became the sole distributor of AVISMA's
titanium sponge in November 1995. Petitioner adds that respondents
acknowledge that TMC knows the ultimate destination of merchandise it
sells through resellers, and, therefore, TMC is the true exporter.
Petitioner refers to cases where the Department has applied a
``knowledge test,'' which determines whether the non-NME reseller
qualifies as an exporter. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews; Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered
Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, 57 FR 28360, 28427
(June 24, 1992); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value;
Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium From the Russian Federation, 60 FR
27957, 27959 (May 26, 1995).
In addition, petitioner claims that Interlink will never again be
the exporter and the Department will not be able to calculate a
separate margin for Interlink, unless Interlink purchases from another
entity which does not have knowledge of the ultimate destination.
Therefore, petitioner argues that because TMC will be the only exporter
for future entries of titanium sponge, the dumping margin found for TMC
should be the cash deposit rate for all future entries by any
respondent until the next final results of review are published.
AVISMA and Interlink argue that TIMET is incorrect regarding: (1)
The meaning of the marketing arrangement between Interlink and TMC; (2)
what TMC knew about the destination of the Interlink sales covered by
this review; and (3) the future AVISMA/TMC/Interlink marketing
arrangements for titanium sponge sales. AVISMA and Interlink argue that
TMC had only a general awareness of Interlink's sales plans and did not
know the destination of each sale made by Interlink (an arrangement
similar to TMC's sales relationship with AVISMA). In addition, AVISMA
and Interlink state that, because of the circumstances of the sale, TMC
could not and did not know who or in what country the customer was
located. Finally, AVISMA and Interlink argue that petitioner is
incorrect in asserting that Interlink will never again be an exporter
because, as stated in the last review, the relationship between AVISMA
and its resellers is continuing to evolve and sales may be based on a
different distribution approach in the future.
Department's Position
We disagree with petitioner's assertion that Interlink will never
again be an exporter of the subject merchandise and that the
application of a single dumping margin for all exporters is
appropriate. Speculation on the future relationships between AVISMA and
its resellers is not relevant to this administrative review. What is
relevant is that during this review, AVISMA was able to sell directly
to TMC, Interlink, and Cometals. Due to the proprietary nature of the
information on the record, please see the Analysis Memo for a further
discussion of the Department's position.
Comment 5: U.S. Credit Expense
Petitioner claims that the Department may have committed a
ministerial error by not including credit cost in its margin
calculations. Petitioner argues that the Department should make an
adjustment for credit based on the terms of sale.
AVISMA and Interlink argue that petitioner is referring to a
citation to the Department's regulations which would only apply to
reviews based on requests filed with the Department on or after July 1,
1997 (section 351.701; 62 FR 27296, 27416-17 (May 19, 1997)). In
addition, AVISMA and Interlink claim that the Departmental practice is
to not make circumstance of sale adjustments in cases involving non-
market economies. See Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Oscillating Fans and Ceiling Fans from the People's Republic of
China, 56 FR 55271, 55276 (October 25, 1991); Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from
the People's Republic of China, 58 FR 48833, 48839 (September 20, 1993)
(Lock Washers); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Faire Value:
Saccharin from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 58818, 58823
(November 15, 1994); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR
56045, 50-51 (November 6, 1995).
Department's Position
We disagree with petitioner that we should make an adjustment for
credit based on the terms of sale. If this proceeding occurred in a
market-economy country, we would adjust normal value for the imputed
credit calculated on the sales to the United States, in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. However, in cases involving non-
market economies (NMEs), Departmental practice is to not adjust for
differences in the circumstances of sale (COS), such as imputed credit.
See Lock Washers, DOC Position to Comment 4 at 48839.
Section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act states that COS adjustments to
normal value are only required upon a sufficient showing that
differences in circumstances of sale exist justifying the adjustment.
In this case, the only information we have regarding credit costs in
the Brazilian home market is the financial statements of the Brazilian
producers. These statements do not specify whether Brazilian home
market sales include any particular selling expenses. Therefore, we do
not have any basis upon which to determine whether adjustment to the
surrogate expenses is appropriate. Given the imprecise nature of the
information on selling expenses, we have no basis to conclude that such
adjustments are warranted in this case. See Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles from the People's Republic of
China, DOC Position to Comment 1, 61 FR 19026, 19031 (April 30, 1996).
Comment 6: Value of Steel Sheet
AVISMA and Interlink argue that the Department's value for steel
sheet is far in excess of the cost that one would expect to pay for
this ``relatively minor input,'' and the SITC category used by the
Department is incorrect and should not be used in the calculation of
normal value. AVISMA and Interlink provided: (1) Information regarding
the types of steel covered by the SITC classification used by the
Department; (2) alternative HS classifications which AVISMA and
Interlink believe are more appropriate; and (3) Brazilian import data
for the HS classifications for steel.
AVISMA and Interlink claim that, although the Department used the
same SITC category in the prior review, there was apparently an
arithmetic error for this input which AVISMA and Interlink did not
recognize because the value appeared to be reasonable. In the current
review, although now the calculation is arithmetically correct, AVISMA
and Interlink claim that the cost for steel sheet far exceeds any
reasonable expectation of a cost for a minor input. Therefore, AVISMA
and Interlink argue that the Department must reject its value for steel
sheet because it clearly overstates the value of steel and does not
produce a reasonable result.
AVISMA and Interlink state the SITC classification used by the
Department is comprised of two HS categories: 7208.44 and 7208.45.
AVISMA and Interlink state that the difference between the two HS
categories is the thickness of the
[[Page 48606]]
sheet. AVISMA and Interlink argue that the more narrow thickness
category is more appropriate because lighter drums are preferred in the
titanium sponge industry since they are easier to handle and are less
expensive to make and transport. Further, AVISMA and Interlink argue
that the U.S. Department of Transportation's Research and Special
Programs Administration issued regulations which state that steel drums
which contain hazardous wastes must meet a minimum thickness
requirement of 0.92 mm and have a nominal thickness of 1.0 mm. AVISMA
and Interlink report that the greatest thickness of steel in the
regulations is 1.9 mm.
AVISMA and Interlink further argue that the HS classification
7208.45 contains specialty steel sheet, while HS classification
7208.35, the only other HS category of hot-rolled steel sheet with a
thickness of less than 3 mm, contains the commodity type hot-rolled
steel sheet. Therefore, AVISMA and Interlink believe that the
Department should value steel sheet from HS classification 7208.35 or a
weighted-average of HS categories 7208.35 and 7208.45.
Department's Position
We disagree with AVISMA and Interlink that the SITC category used
to value steel sheet is incorrect, given the evidence on the record.
AVISMA did not provide any specifications of the steel sheet used for
producing steel drums in any of its questionnaire responses. Because of
the absence of this information, the Department determined in the
preliminary results that the SITC category for steel sheet used in the
previous administrative review would be appropriate to value steel
sheet for this instant review. Parties did not file comments on the
Department's use of the SITC category for steel sheet in the previous
review.
AVISMA's and Interlink's argument that there was an arithmetic
error in the previous review should have been raised in the previous
review. Because there is no information on the record of this case
describing the specifications of the steel sheet used by AVISMA, we are
not in the position to make a determination on the thickness of the
steel used. Therefore, we determined that the use of the basket SITC
category to value steel sheet is appropriate for this review.
Final Results of Review
As a result of the comments received, we did not revise our
preliminary results and determined that the following margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Review period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia-wide rate........................ 8/1/95-7/31/96 83.96
Cometals, Inc........................... 8/1/95-7/31/96 28.31
Interlink Metals & Chemicals............ 8/1/95-7/31/96 0.00
TMC Trading International............... 8/1/95-7/31/96 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The following
deposit requirement will be effective 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, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the
Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for merchandise manufactured and
exported to the United States directly by AVISMA will be the Russia-
wide rate established in these final results of review; (2) the cash
deposit rates for merchandise exported to the United States by
Interlink, TMC, or Cometals will be those rates established for
Interlink, TMC, or Cometals in these final results of review; (3) for
merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this
review but covered in the original LTFV investigation or a previous
review and have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to
be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final
results for which the manufacturer or exporter received a company-
specific rate; (4) for Russian manufacturers or exporters not covered
in the LTFV investigation or in this or prior administrative reviews,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the Russia-wide rate; and (5)
the cash deposit rate for non-Russian exporters of subject merchandise
from Russia that were not covered in the LTFV investigation or in this
or prior administrative reviews will be the rate applicable to the
Russian supplier of that exporter. These deposit rates, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the
next administrative review.
Further, because the rates for Interlink and TMC have been
determined to be zero, we will instruct Customs to liquidate all
exports of the subject merchandise during the POR by Interlink and TMC,
without regard to the antidumping duty. As stated in the preliminary
results, we found that AVISMA's and Cometals' exports during the POR
entered the United States under temporary importation bonds, which are
not subject to the antidumping order. The Department will issue
appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs Service.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26(b) 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 the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) in this review of their
responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). 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.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)).
Dated: September 9, 1997.
Jeffrey P. Bialos,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-24469 Filed 9-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
