[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 203 (Friday, October 21, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26203]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: October 21, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-588-806]

 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews: 
Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From Japan

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

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 21, 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, DC 20230; 
telephone: (202) 482-0922 and (202) 482-0631, respectively.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by the petitioners, the Department of 
Commerce (``the Department'') has conducted administrative reviews of 
the antidumping duty order on electrolytic manganese dioxide (``EMD'') 
from Japan. The reviews cover one manufacturer/exporter of this 
merchandise to the United States, Tosoh Corporation (``TOSOH''), during 
the periods April 1, 1991, through March 31, 1992, April 1, 1992, 
through March 31, 1993.
    The Department has completed these reviews and has determined that 
respondent's dumping margin should be based on best information 
available (``BIA'') for the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 reviews. The margin 
for this manufacturer/exporter is 77.43 percent for the 1991-1992 and 
1992-1993 periods.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 13, 1994, and July 8, 1994, the Department published the 
Federal Register notices of the preliminary results of its 
administrative reviews for the periods April 1, 1992, through March 31, 
1993 (59 FR 17511), and April 1, 1991, through March 31, 1992 (59 FR 
35096), respectively. The Department gave interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. We received a 
comment from petitioners, Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation and Chemetals 
Incorporated, on July 20, 1994, relating to the 1992-1993 review. TOSOH 
did not comment on either the 1991-1992 review or the 1992-1993 review. 
The Department has completed these reviews in accordance with section 
751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of Reviews

    Imports covered by these reviews are shipments of electrolytic 
manganese dioxide. EMD is manganese dioxide (MnO2) that has been 
refined in an electrolysis process. During the review periods, such 
merchandise was classifiable under subheading 2820.10.0000 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). The HTS 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 in 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).
    These reviews cover EMD sales to the United States by one 
manufacturer/exporter, TOSOH.

Interested Party Comment

Comment

    Petitioners request confirmation in the context of the 1992-1993 
review that any subsequent review involving TOSOH's shipments of the 
subject merchandise will include an inquiry into the correct basis for 
U.S. prices of reviewed transactions. Specifically, petitioners request 
that the Department confirm that it will make a determination in a 
future review as to whether the price to test against fair value is 
TOSOH's price to its customer, Mitsubishi Corporation (``Mitsubishi''), 
or the price that Mitsubishi charges to its customer in the United 
States.

DOC Position

    It is not appropriate for the Department to speculate on the 
resolution of issues that are not relevant to the instant proceeding. 
Although petitioners argued that Mitsubishi's prices to its customer 
should be the basis for U.S. price, this issue did not need to be 
addressed in the 1992-1993 proceeding because TOSOH did not 
participate. Whether, in subsequent review periods, the Department will 
examine TOSOH's relationship with Mitsubishi is a matter to be decided 
in those proceedings should the issue be raised.

Final Results of the Reviews

    TOSOH declined to respond to section D of the Department's 
questionnaire in the 1991-1992 review. TOSOH also did not respond to 
any part of the Department's questionnaire in the 1992-1993 review. 
Pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act, whenever a company refuses to 
produce information requested or otherwise significantly impedes an 
investigation, the Department will use BIA.
    Because TOSOH refused, in both reviews, to respond to the 
Department's questionnaire, we consider it to be an uncooperative 
respondent. 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 the current 
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).
    Accordingly, for both reviews, we used as BIA the highest of the 
rates found for any firm in the original LTFV investigation: 77.43 
percent (See Final Determination of the Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Japan (54 FR 8778, March 2, 1989)).
    As a result of these reviews, we determine that the following 
margins exist for each review period:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
           Manufacturer/Exporter                Time period    (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOSOH......................................    4/1/91-3/31/92     77.43 
TOSOH......................................    4/1/92-3/31/93     77.43 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries for each period of 
review. Individual differences between United States price and foreign 
market value may vary from the percentage stated above. 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 these administrative reviews, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act. A cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties 
based on margins for the most recent 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 the 1992-1993 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 the 1992-1993 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 the 1992-1993 review, any previous review conducted by the 
Department, or the original LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate 
will be the ``all other'' rate established in the LTFV investigation of 
73.30 percent. See the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Japan 58 FR 48826, 48833, 
(September 20, 1993), for a further discussion of the Department's 
practice in setting the all others rate.
    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 final 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 these review periods. 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) of their responsibility 
concerning disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO 
in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of 
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and terms of the APO is a sanctionable violation.
    These administrative reviews 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: October 5, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-26203 Filed 10-20-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M9