[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-8908]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: April 13, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-806]

 

Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Japan: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Erik Warga or Mark Wells, Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0922 and (202) 
482-3003, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 9, 1993 (58 FR 18374), the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published in the Federal Register notices of ``Opportunity 
to Request Administrative Review.'' In response to the request made by 
Petitioners, Chemetals Inc. and Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, the 
Department initiated the administrative review on May 27, 1993 (58 FR 
30767) of the antidumping duty order on Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide 
(EMD) from Japan on April 17, 1989 (54 FR 15244). The review covers one 
manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States, 
Tosoh Corporation (TOSOH) during the period, April 1, 1992, through 
March 31, 1993. The Department is conducting this review in accordance 
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
    As a result of this review, the Department has preliminarily 
determined to assess antidumping duties of 77.43 percent ad valorem 
based on best information available (BIA) for the period of review.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results.

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by the review are shipments of electrolytic 
manganese dioxide. EMD is manganese dioxide (MnO2) that has been 
refined in an electrolysis process. During the review period, such 
merchandise was classifiable under subheading 2820.10.000 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS 
subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes. The 
written description remains dispositive.
    On January 6, 1992, the Department published a final scope ruling, 
Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Japan; Final Scope Ruling (57 FR 
395; January 6, 1992), in which it affirmed that high-grade chemical 
manganese dioxide (CMD-U) is a ``later-developed product'' and is 
included within the scope of the order on EMD from Japan. For a 
detailed discussion of that ruling, see Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide 
from Japan; Preliminary Scope Ruling (56 FR 56977; November 7, 1991).

Preliminary Results of the Review

    This review covers EMD entries into the United States by one 
manufacturer/exporter, TOSOH. Given the TOSOH did not respond to the 
Department's questionnaire, we consider it to be an uncooperative 
respondent, and have assigned to it a margin based on best information 
available. Our practice, for uncooperative respondents, is to apply as 
BIA the higher of (1) the highest of the rates found for any firm in 
the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or prior administrative 
reviews, or (2) the highest rate found in this review for any firm (see 
Final Results of Administrative Review: Antifriction Bearings (other 
than Tapered Roller Bearings) from France (58 FR 39729, 39739, July 26, 
1993)). Therefore, we used, as BIA, the highest of the rates found for 
any firm in the Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of EMD from Japan (54 FR 8778, March 2, 1989), which is 
77.43 percent.
    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margin exists for the review period:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Margin   
         Manufacturer/exporter              Time period       (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOSOH..................................   04/1/92-03/31/93         77.43
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries for the period of review. 
The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the 
Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the 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 the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act. A cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties 
based on margins for the period of April 1, 1992, through March 31, 
1993, shall be required on all shipments of subject merchandise from 
Japan, as follows:
    (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be that 
established in the final results of this administrative review;
    (2) For previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed 
above, 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 LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, 
the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent 
period 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 conducted by the Department, the cash 
deposit rate will be the ``all other'' rate established in the LTFV 
investigation (54 FR 8778) of 73.30 percent, as discussed below.
    On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade, in Floral Trade 
Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (1993), and Federal Mogul 
Corporation v. United States, 839 F. Supp. 864 (1993), decided that 
once an ``all others'' rate is established for a company it can only be 
changed through an administrative review. The Department has determined 
that in order to implement these decisions, it is appropriate to 
reinstate the original ``all others'' rate from the LTFV investigation 
(or that rate as amended for correction of clerical errors or as a 
result of litigation) in proceedings governed by antidumping duty 
orders.
    In proceedings governed by antidumping findings (i.e., proceedings 
originally investigated by the Treasury Department), unless we are able 
to ascertain the ``all others'' rate from the Treasury LTFV 
investigation, the Department adopts the ``new shipper'' rate 
established in the first final results of administrative review 
published by the Department of Commerce (or that rate as amended for 
correction of clerical errors or as a result of litigation) as the 
``all others'' rate for the purposes of establishing cash deposits in 
all current and future administrative reviews.
    Because this proceeding was investigated by the Department of 
Commerce, it is governed by an antidumping duty order. Therefore, the 
``all others'' rate for the purposes of this review will be 73.30 
percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation 
(54 FR 8778).
    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 353.26 to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.

Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written 
comments in at least seven copies must be submitted to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration no later than April 25, 1994, and 
rebuttal briefs, no later than May 5, 1994. The Department will publish 
the final results of the administrative review including the results of 
its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief. We will 
hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. 
Tentatively, the hearing will be held on May 12, 1994, at 1:30 p.m. at 
the U.S. Department of Commerce, room 3708, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm 
by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before 
the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, room 
B-099, within ten days of the publication of this notice. Requests 
should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; 
(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be 
discussed. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b), oral presentations will 
be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: April 5, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-8908 Filed 4-12-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M