[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 130 (Friday, July 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-16607]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: July 8, 1994]


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

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

 

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

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

effective date: July 8, 1994.

for further information contact: Erik Warga or Dorothy Tomaszewski, 
Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0922 and (202) 482-0631, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 8, 1992 (57 FR 11935), 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 22, 1992 (57 FR 
21769) 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, 1991, through 
March 31, 1992. The Department is conducting this review in accordance 
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
    On August 26, 1992, the Department issued a questionnaire to TOSOH 
for the 1991-1992 administrative review. The questionnaire had three 
sections: section A, requesting general information; section B, 
requesting information on U.S. sales; and section C, requesting 
information on home market sales. TOSOH submitted its questionnaire 
response on November 13, 1992. Petitioners submitted comments on 
TOSOH's questionnaire response on December 2, 1992.
    On December 18, 1992, petitioners alleged to the Department that 
TOSOH was selling the subject merchandise to the United States at 
prices below cost of production. On March 29, 1994, pursuant to section 
773(b) of the Act, the Department issued section D of the 
questionnaire, which requested information on TOSOH's cost of 
production. On April 29, 1994, TOSOH informed the Department that it 
would not respond to section D of the questionnaire. TOSOH explained 
that its small role in the U.S. market does not justify the high cost 
of completing the questionnaire.
    Since TOSOH did not respond to section D of the Department's 
questionnaire, we consider it to be an uncooperative respondent. 
Therefore, pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act, the Department has 
preliminarily determined to assess antidumping duties of 77.43 percent 
ad valorem based on best information available (BIA) for this 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 2820.10.0000 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 that TOSOH declined to respond to 
section D of the Department's questionnaire, we consider it to be an 
uncooperative respondent, and have assigned to it a margin based on BIA 
under section 776(c) of the Act (see Final Determination of Sales at 
Less than Fair Value: Steel Wire Rod from Brazil (59 FR 5984, February 
9, 1994); Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain 
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, etc. from Brazil (58 FR 37091, 
July 9, 1993)). 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 Sales at Less 
than Fair Value: 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, 1991, through March 31, 
1992, 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. 782 (1993), and Federal Mogul 
Corporation v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 782 (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 LTVF 
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 July 20, 1994, and 
rebuttal briefs, no later than July 27, 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 August 1, 
1994, at 1:30 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 3606, 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: June 29, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-16607 Filed 7-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M