[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27436]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 7, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-821-805 and A-821-806]
Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postponement of Final Determinations: Pure and Alloy
Magnesium From the Russian Federation
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 17, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Grebasch or Erik Warga, Office
of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3773 or (202) 482-0922, respectively.
PRELIMINARY DETERMINATIONS: We preliminarily determine that imports of
pure magnesium and alloy magnesium from the Russian Federation are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair
value (``LTFV''), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (``the Act''). The estimated margins are shown in the
``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.
Case History
Since the initiation of these investigations on April 20, 1994, (59
FR 21748, April 26, 1994), the following events have occurred.
On May 16, 1994, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)
notified the Department of Commerce (the Department) of its preliminary
determinations that there was a reasonable indication that an industry
in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material
injury, by reason of imports of pure and alloy magnesium from the
Russian Federation.
On June 13, 1994, we sent the antidumping questionnaire to the
Embassy of the Russian Federation and the two Russian manufacturers
(which were identified in the petition). (The antidumping questionnaire
was divided into three sections: Section A requesting general
information on each company; section C requesting information on, and a
listing of, U.S. sales made during the period of investigation
(``POI''); and, section D requesting information on the production
process, including specific amounts of each input used in manufacturing
pure or alloy magnesium.) We requested the Embassy's assistance in
forwarding the questionnaire to all exporters and producers of pure or
alloy magnesium from the Russian Federation and submitting complete
questionnaire responses on their behalf.
In addition to sending questionnaires to the Russian Embassy,
during July and August, the Department independently attempted to
identify other possible exporters of pure magnesium and alloy magnesium
from Russia to the United States during the POI based on information
obtained from petitioners, and through examination of PIERS data and
other sources of information. Our efforts consisted of issuing an
August 8, 1994, survey requesting information on exports to the United
States of the subject merchandise; issuing the antidumping
questionnaire (limited to Sections A and C) to trading companies
operating in various European countries (on August 19, September 7, and
September 13, 1994); and a September 15, 1994, follow-up letter to
unresponsive questionnaire recipients.
We sent either the survey, the questionnaire, or both documents to
56 companies, with the following results.
Six companies in the pure magnesium proceeding, AIOC, Gerald
Metals, Hunter Douglas, Interlink, MG Metals, and Razno Alloys; and two
companies in the alloy magnesium proceeding, Gerald Metals and SMW,
provided information in response to Sections A and C of the
questionnaire.
Twenty-two companies in the pure magnesium proceeding and 27
companies in the alloy magnesium proceeding indicated that they did not
sell the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. The
companies that did not export were (a) alloy only: AIOC; HDM;
Interlink; MG Metals; Razno and F&S; (b) pure only: SMW (except for a
small-quantity trial sale) and (c) both pure and alloy: Intreid;
Kemokomplex; Raba Company; Alamet; Compagnie de Mines et Metals;
Expromptorg; Fred Lonner & Co., Inc.; Metal Exchange Corporation;
Minmeta S.A.; Minmetals Canada, Inc.; Scandinavian Steel AB; Stena
Metall Atervinning AB; Sinex AG; Sassoon Metals and Chemicals; IMEX
Consulting Sprl; A&L; Steinweg Handelsveem; A. Hartrodt; C. Steinweg
Handelsveem B.V.; J. Oosterom & Zoom; and Siegfried Kahn AG.
In each of the two proceedings, seven companies indicated that they
were related to companies that had provided information as to whether
or not they had made U.S. sales.
Fifteen companies in the pure magnesium proceeding and 14 companies
in the alloy magnesium proceeding provided either no response or an
inadequate response. The Department received no response from the
following 13 companies in both proceedings: Derek Raphael & Co., Ltd.;
Marco Trading; Wogen Group Ltd.; Alex; Mages; and 8 companies that
cannot be named in this notice because their identities are deemed
business proprietary information. We have designated these 8 companies
as companies ``A'' through ``H'' in the ``Suspension of Liquidation''
section of this notice, below. We will, however, identify them to the
Customs Service for enforcement of these determinations. Additionally,
both F&S (pure only) and W&O Bergmann (both pure and alloy) indicated
that they had made POI sales of subject merchandise to the United
States, but otherwise ignored our requests for information.
Finally, surveys sent to six companies were returned as
undeliverable.
On August 8, 1994, the Department postponed its preliminary
determinations until October 27, 1994 (59 FR 42200, August 17, 1994).
On August 10, 1994, the Department provided interested parties with
the opportunity to submit published, publicly-available information for
the Department to consider when valuing the factor inputs. Petitioners
and respondents submitted information on September 7, 1994.
From July through October 1994, the Department received responses
to questionnaire sections A and C for pure magnesium from AIOC, Gerald
Metals, HDM, Interlink, MG Metals, Razno and SMW. (Note that SMW's
trial sale of pure magnesium were not considered by the Department
because these sales represent an insignificant portion of the total
volume of U.S. sales. Therefore, for the preliminary determination, the
Department has not considered SMW to be an exporter of pure magnesium
and did not calculate a margin for SMW's trial sales of pure
magnesium.)
For alloy magnesium the Department received responses to Sections A
and C from Gerald Metals and SMW.
The Department received responses to sections A and D from the
following manufacturers: Berezniki Titanium and Magnesium Works
(Avisma) and SMW.
On September 12, 1994, Avisma and SMW requested that the Russian
Federation be reclassified as a market economy country. They also
contended that, if the Department did not revoke the Russian
Federation's non-market economy (NME) designation, the Department
should determine that the magnesium industry in the Russian Federation
is a market-oriented industry (MOI). (See the ``Foreign Market Value''
section of this notice, below.)
During September and October 1994, the Department requested
clarifications of the submitted questionnaire responses from AIOC,
Avisma, Gerald Metals, HDM, Interlink, MG, Razno, and SMW. Avisma,
Interlink, MG, Razno, and SMW submitted additional response
information. Gerald Metals' and HDM's responses to this supplemental
information request are not due until after the deadline for these
preliminary determinations.
On October 10, 1994, petitioners alleged that critical
circumstances exist with respect to imports of alloy magnesium from the
Russian Federation. The Department accepted this allegation and
requested that Gerald Metals and SMW provide historical information on
shipments of alloy magnesium.
Postponement of Final Determinations
Pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act, on October 24, 1994,
Gerald Metals, a reseller accounting for a significant proportion of
the merchandise in these proceedings, requested that, in the event of
affirmative preliminary determinations in these investigations, the
Department postpone the final determinations to 135 days after the date
of publication of the affirmative preliminary determinations. Avisma
and SMW, producers accounting for a significant proportion of
merchandise in these proceedings, made a similar request on October 27,
1994. Therefore, we are postponing the final determinations until the
135th day after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Scopes of Investigation
A. Pure Magnesium
The product covered by this investigation is pure primary magnesium
regardless of chemistry, form or size, unless expressly excluded from
the scope of this investigation. Primary magnesium is a metal or alloy
containing by weight primarily the element magnesium and produced by
decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal.
Pure primary magnesium encompasses all products that contain at
least 99.95% primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as
``ultra-pure'' magnesium), as well as products containing less than
99.95% but not less than 99.8% primary magnesium, by weight (generally
referred to as ``pure'' magnesium). Products that have the
aforementioned primary magnesium content, but that do not conform to
ASTM specifications or other industry or customer-specific
specifications, are included in the scope of this investigation.
Pure primary magnesium is cast and sold in various physical forms
and sizes, including ingots, slabs, rounds, billets and other shapes.
Excluded from the scope of this investigation are primary magnesium
anodes, granular primary magnesium (including turnings and powder), and
secondary magnesium.
Granular magnesium, turnings, and powder are currently classifiable
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
subheading 8104.30.00. Magnesium granules and turnings (also referred
to as chips) are produced by grinding and/or crushing primary magnesium
and thus have the same chemistry as primary magnesium. Although not
susceptible to precise measurement because of their irregular shapes,
turnings or chips are typically produced in coarse shapes and have
maximum length of less than 1 inch. Although sometimes produced in
larger sizes, granules are more regularly shaped than turnings or
chips, and have a typical size of 2mm in diameter or smaller.
Powders are also produced from grinding and/or crushing primary
magnesium and have the same chemistry as primary magnesium, but are
even smaller than granules or turnings. Powders are defined by the
Section Notes to Section XV, the section of the HTSUS in which
subheading 8104.30.00 appears, as products of which 90 percent or more
by weight will pass through a sieve having a mesh aperture of 1mm. (See
HTSUS, Section XV, Base Metals and Articles of Base Metals, Note 6(b).)
Accordingly, the exclusion of magnesium turnings, granules and powder
from the scope include products having a maximum physical dimension
(i.e., length or diameter) of 1 inch or less.
The products subject to these investigations are currently
classifiable under subheadings 8104.11.00 and 8104.20.00 of the HTSUS.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive.
B. Alloy Magnesium
The product covered by this investigation is alloy primary
magnesium regardless of chemistry, form or size, unless expressly
excluded from the scope of this investigation. Primary magnesium is a
metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium and
produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal.
This investigation covers alloy primary magnesium products which
contain 50% or greater, but less than 99.8%, primary magnesium, by
weight. Products with the aforementioned primary magnesium content that
do not conform to ASTM specifications or other industry or customer-
specific specifications are included in the scope of this
investigation. In addition to primary magnesium, ``alloy'' magnesium
generally contains one or more of the following items in amounts less
than the primary magnesium itself: (1) Other elements deliberately
added to the primary magnesium; (2) magnesium scrap or secondary
magnesium; (3) oxidized magnesium; and (4) other elements present as
impurities.
Alloy primary magnesium is cast and sold in various physical forms
and sizes, including ingots, slabs, rounds, billets and other shapes.
Excluded from the scope of this investigation are primary magnesium
anodes, granular primary magnesium (including turnings and powder), and
secondary magnesium.
Granular magnesium, turnings, and powder are currently classifiable
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
subheading 8104.30.00. Magnesium granules and turnings (also referred
to as chips) are produced by grinding and/or crushing primary magnesium
and thus have the same chemistry as primary magnesium. Although not
susceptible to precise measurement because of their irregular shapes,
turnings or chips are typically produced in coarse shapes and have
maximum length of less than 1 inch. Although sometimes produced in
larger sizes, granules are more regularly shaped than turnings or
chips, and have a typical size of 2mm in diameter or smaller.
Powders are also produced from grinding and/or crushing primary
magnesium and have the same chemistry as primary magnesium, but are
even smaller than granules or turnings. Powders are defined by the
Section Notes to Section XV, the section of the HTSUS in which
subheading 8104.30.00 appears, as products of which 90 percent or more
by weight will pass through a sieve having a mesh aperture of 1mm. (See
HTSUS, Section XV, Base Metals and Articles of Base Metals, Note 6(b).)
Accordingly, the exclusion of magnesium turnings, granules and powder
from the scope include products having a maximum physical dimension
(i.e., length or diameter) of 1 inch or less.
The products subject to these investigations are currently
classifiable under subheadings 8104.19.00 and 8104.20.00 of the HTSUS.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive.
Period of Investigation
The POI in both proceedings is October 1, 1993, through March 31,
1994.
Fair Value Comparisons
A. Participating Respondents
To determine whether sales to the United States of pure magnesium
by AIOC, Gerald Metals, HDM, Interlink, MG Metals, and Razno, and sales
to the United States of alloy magnesium by Gerald Metals and SMW, were
made at less than fair value, we compared the United States price
(``USP'') to the foreign market value (``FMV''), as specified in the
``United States Price'' and ``Foreign Market Value'' sections of this
notice.
B. Non-participating Respondents
All companies to which a questionnaire was issued are considered
mandatory respondents in these proceedings. We consider those mandatory
respondents that did not respond to the questionnaire to be
uncooperative respondents, and we have based the less-than-fair-value
margin for those companies on the best information available (``BIA'').
For these preliminary determinations, we consider F&S (pure magnesium
only) and W&O Bergmann (both pure and alloy magnesium) to be
uncooperative respondents, as well as: Derek Raphael & Co., Ltd.; Marco
Trading; Wogen Group Ltd.; Alex; Mages; and the eight companies whose
names cannot be disclosed because their identities are deemed business
proprietary information. Accordingly, we have based these companies'
LTFV margins on an uncooperative BIA rate.
F&S's responses to our inquiries indicated sales of pure magnesium
but not sales of alloy magnesium. Therefore, only F&S's sales of pure
magnesium are subject to a BIA deposit rate.
In determining what to use as BIA, the Department follows a two-
tiered methodology, whereby the Department normally assigns lower
margins to those respondents that cooperated in an investigation and
margins based on more adverse assumptions for those respondents which
did not cooperate in an investigation. As outlined in the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Belgium, 58
FR 37083 (July 9, 1993), when a company refuses to provide the
information requested in the form required, or otherwise significantly
impedes the Department's investigation, it is appropriate for the
Department to assign to that company the higher of (a) the highest
margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate of
any respondent in the investigation. Here, since these companies failed
to respond to our questionnaire, we are assigning as BIA to
uncooperative exporters a margin of 64.12 percent for pure magnesium
and 107.89 percent for alloy magnesium. These margins represent the
highest margin in each petition for each product, as recalculated by
the Department for the initiation.
C. All Other Companies
We are basing the LTFV margins for all other companies, including
those companies which reported that they did not sell the subject
merchandise to the United States during the POI, on a simple average of
the rates calculated for the mandatory respondents, including rates
based on BIA but excluding zero and de minimis margins, if any.
United States Price
We based USP for AIOC, Interlink, Gerald Metals, MG Metals (where
appropriate), Razno, and SMW on purchase price, in accordance with
section 772(b) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold
directly by the exporters to unrelated parties in the United States
prior to importation into the United States and because exporter's
sales price (``ESP'') methodology was not indicated by other
circumstances.
For Interlink, Gerald Metals, MG Metals, Razno and SMW, we
calculated purchase price based on packed, CIF, delivered, or FOT
warehouse prices to unrelated purchasers in the United States. We made
the following deductions (where appropriate): for Razno and SMW, ocean
freight and marine insurance; for AIOC, Interlink, Gerald Metals, and
MG Metals, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling
charges, U.S. duty, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. inland insurance.
We based USP for HDM and, where appropriate, MG Metals, on ESP, in
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, because the subject
merchandise was sold to the first unrelated purchaser after importation
into the United States.
We calculated exporter's sale price based on packed delivered
prices, where appropriate. For HDM, we made deductions, where
appropriate, for ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight,
U.S. duties, and U.S. brokerage and handling. For MG Metals, we made
deductions for foreign brokerage, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S.
duties, inland freight, inland insurance, and U.S. brokerage and
handling.
From each exporter's U.S. price, we deducted foreign inland freight
between the factory and the reported intermediate destination (e.g.,
Rotterdam) as follows: For AIOC, SMW, and Razno, we used reported
distances and transport modes to calculate an appropriate surrogate
factory-to-border freight amount on the basis of surrogate freight
rates in Brazil; for Interlink, Gerald Metals, HDM and MG Metals, we
deducted the per-ton foreign inland freight amount reported in the
petition as best information available because those exporters failed
to report in their questionnaire responses information with respect to
such charges. We made no deduction from USP to account for either
export taxes paid by Russian companies to the Russian government or
commissions paid by Russian companies to other Russian companies
because (a) the actual amounts paid are an internal expense within an
NME country and (b) there is no quantifiable good or service factor for
which a surrogate value can be determined. Finally, we adjusted
reported marine insurance and ocean freight charges for Razno as
follows: a reported figure that appeared to be an extended value (i.e.,
an amount applicable to the entire transaction) was adjusted to reflect
a per-unit amount; for transactions where no figure was reported, we
used as the highest reported non-aberrational per-unit amount.
Foreign Market Value
A. Market Reforms in the Russian Federation
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department
normally uses a factor valuation methodology to calculate foreign
market value when the country involved is an NME country and the
Department determines that it cannot determine foreign market value
based on the respondent's prices or costs. An NME-country respondent
may argue that market-driven prices characterize its particular
industry and, therefore, despite NME status, that foreign market value
should be calculated by using actual home market prices or costs.
In these investigations, the Russian manufacturers, Avisma and SMW,
make such a market-oriented-industry (``MOI'') claim. Alternatively,
the two companies claim that economic conditions now prevalent
throughout Russia warrant revocation of Russia's NME-country status,
effective January 1, 1994.
The Department's analysis with respect to such claims centers
around a government's role in economic activity. Consistent with the
factors described in section 771(18), the Department considers the
extent to which resources are allocated by the market or government,
taking into account government involvement in currency and labor
markets, pricing, and production and investment decisions. Where
resources are not allocated by the market, it would be difficult to
conclude that home market prices or costs should be used to calculate
fair value.
Evidence provided in these proceedings indicates that Russia is in
the process of implementing extensive reforms to achieve its goal of
becoming a market economy. The freeing of most prices in December 1991
and the privatization of most enterprises formerly within the state-
planning system are important steps in moving Russia towards a market
economy.
We cannot conclude, however, based on the information in this
record that Russia should be treated as a market economy for purposes
of the antidumping duty law. The Russian economy, having emerged from a
centrally-planned system, is in a state of transition. Many of the
state controls have been abandoned, but that does not mean that
functioning markets have replaced controls. Because the evidence does
not demonstrate that prices and costs in Russia adequately reflect
market considerations, we cannot at this time alter Russia's
designation as a nonmarket economy.
Information on the record also suggests that the government
continues to be involved in the Russian magnesium sector. For example,
the Russian Federal Committee on Metallurgy, a successor to the
Ministry of Industry (Metallurgy Department), indicated in an official
statement that it controls activity in the magnesium industry in
Russia, noting particularly that it coordinates production, exports,
and prices. Also, although the two producers under investigation have
been privatized, this same statement indicates that the Committee may
be using the remaining government interest in these companies to carry
out its intentions with respect to pricing and production. For these
reasons, we have determined that the prices or costs of producing
magnesium in Russia should not be used to calculate fair value.
B. Surrogate Country Selection
In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, we must, to the
extent possible, value the factors of production in one or more market
economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the non-market economy country, and (2) are
significant producers of comparable merchandise. Thus, we have
considered as possible surrogates those countries that are economically
comparable to Russia and that produce identical or comparable
merchandise. Of those countries that we have determined to be
economically comparable, Brazil is the only country that is a
significant producer of the identical merchandise, magnesium. (See
October 21, 1994, Memorandum from the Office of Policy to the file.)
Accordingly, we have based FMV on the values of the appropriate factors
of production as valued in Brazil. We have obtained and relied upon
published, publicly available information, wherever possible.
C. Factors of Production
We calculated FMV based on factors of production reported by the
factories which produced the subject merchandise for the above-
mentioned exporters. The factors used to produce pure and alloy
magnesium include materials, labor, and energy. To calculate FMV, the
reported quantities were multiplied by the appropriate surrogate values
for the different inputs. (For a complete analysis of surrogate values,
see our calculation memorandum.) We then added amounts for general
expenses and profit, the cost of containers and coverings, and other
expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed and
ready for shipment to the United States.
To value the raw materials, we used publicly available information
for Brazil from the United Nations Trade Commodity Statistics (UN Trade
Statistics) for January-December 1992. We did not attempt to adjust raw
material factor values to account for inflation between 1992 and the
POI because the figures were reported in dollars, and we had no
indication as to how exchange rates, currency reforms, and
hyperinflation could properly be taken into account. For those raw
materials for which we were unable to obtain publicly available
information from Brazil, we used data provided in the petition.
To value heavy oil, we used 1993 data for Brazil from the Energy
Information Administration's International Energy Annual. Although this
value for heavy oil is tax-inclusive, it is the only data found for
heavy oil in Brazil.
Natural gas was valued using information from the petition on
prices in Brazil because we could find no other source for prices of
this product.
To value electricity for industrial use, labor, and freight rates
for both truck and rail, we used information reported by the U.S.
Consulate in Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
To value factory overhead, we calculated percentages based on
elements of constructed value data reported in the Antidumping
Investigation of Silicomanganese from Brazil (see public version of
respondents' June 17, 1994, submission in that proceeding). We adjusted
the figure to reflect an energy-exclusive overhead percentage.
For selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expense and profit
percentages, we used statutory minimum of 10 percent, of materials,
labor, and factory overhead. For profit we used the statutory minimum
of eight percent of materials, labor, factory overhead, and SG&A
expenses. No surrogate country information reflected percentages for
SG&A and profit that were above the statutory minima.
To value packing materials, we also used information provided in
the UN Trade Statistics for Brazil for January through December 1992.
We added surrogate freight costs for the delivery of inputs and packing
materials to the factories producing pure and alloy magnesium. For SMW,
we used the actual cost for one factor, plastic, because it had been
imported from a market economy country and paid for in convertible
currency.
Verification
As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify
information determined to be acceptable for use in making our final
determinations.
Critical Circumstances
Petitioners allege that critical circumstances exist with respect
to imports of alloy magnesium from the Russian Federation. Under 19 CFR
353.16(a), critical circumstances exist if (1) there is a history of
dumping in the United States or elsewhere of the same class or kind of
merchandise as the merchandise subject to the investigation; or the
importer knew or should have known that the producer or reseller was
selling the merchandise at less than its fair value; and (2) there have
been massive imports of the merchandise over a relatively short period
of time.
In determining whether imports were massive, 19 CFR 353.16(f)(1)
instructs consideration of:
(i) The volume and value of the imports;
(ii) Seasonal trends; and
(iii) The share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports.
Further, 19 CFR 353.16(f)(2) states that imports will not generally
be considered massive unless they have increased by at least 15 percent
over the imports during an immediately preceding period of comparable
duration.
With respect to the question of whether there is a history of
dumping, we consider whether there has been an antidumping order
covering the imports of the investigated product into the United States
or another country. To determine whether the importers of alloy
magnesium from Russia knew, or should have known, that the products
were being sold at less than fair value, we considered the company-
specific preliminary margins in these investigations. We consider
margins of 25 percent or more (when USP is purchase price) and 15
percent (when USP is ESP) sufficient to impute knowledge. See, e.g.,
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina (58 FR 37062, 37078,
July 9, 1993).
For all exporters except Gerald Metals and SMW, the margin
calculated with respect to alloy magnesium exceeds 25 percent. However,
for Gerald Metals and SMW, the company-specific margins do not exceed
25 percent. Accordingly, we must also consider whether there is a
history of dumping in the United States or elsewhere with respect to
alloy magnesium from Russia in order to determine whether critical
circumstances exist with respect to those companies. We are aware of no
outstanding antidumping duty orders with respect to alloy magnesium
from the Russian Federation. For those companies with estimated margins
that exceed 25 percent, we determine that importers knew or should have
known that sales were at LTFV prices.
The Department's official import statistics show that the volume of
Russian alloy magnesium entries during the post-petition period of
April through June 1994 (79.0 metric tons) exceeds that of the January
through March 1994 pre-petition period (31.1 metric tons) by 154
percent. Nothing on the record indicates that this increase observed
was the result of seasonal trends. With respect to share of domestic
consumption, the information available to us at this time does not
allow us to evaluate whether the increase can be accounted for by a
change in domestic consumption
Therefore, we find that imports were massive over a relatively
short period.
Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances
exist with respect to imports of alloy magnesium from the Russian
Federation except with respect to imports of alloy magnesium sold by
Gerald Metals and SMW.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d)(1) of the Act, we are directing
the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of pure
magnesium from the Russian Federation (except those that represent
sales by AIOC, Gerald Metals, Hunter Douglas, Interlink, or MG Metals)
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. We are also
directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of
alloy magnesium from the Russian Federation (except those that
represent sales by Gerald Metals or SMW) entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after either (a) the date that is 90
days prior to the date of publication of this notice in the Federal
Register or (b) the date of publication of this notice in the Federal
Register, as appropriate. The Customs Service shall require a cash
deposit or posting of a bond equal to the estimated amount by which the
FMV exceeds the USP as shown below. These suspension of liquidation
instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Consistent with our practice in investigations involving imports
from NME countries, we have, in each of the two proceedings, calculated
a single rate applicable to all exporters in the Russian Federation.
The record in these investigations indicates that all Russian exporters
of magnesium responded to our questionnaire. Although SMW requested a
separate rate, we have not addressed the request because, in each
proceeding, the rate for SMW and all other exporters in Russia is the
same irrespective of whether or not SMW warrants a separate rate.
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average margin
percentages Critical
Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter -------------------------- circumstance
Pure Alloy (alloy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIOC.................................................................... 0.00 \1\107.89 Yes.
Gerald Metals........................................................... .00 .00 No.
Hunter Douglas.......................................................... .00 \1\107.89 Yes.
Interlink............................................................... .00 \1\107.89 Yes.
MG...................................................................... \2\.13 \1\107.89 Yes.
Razno and all Russian Exporters\3\...................................... 5.06
SMW and all Russian Exporters\4\........................................ ........... .00 No.
F&S..................................................................... 64.12 \1\107.89 Yes.
W&O..................................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.
Derek Raphael & Co., Ltd................................................ 64.12 107.89 Yes.
Marco Trading........................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.
Wogen Group Ltd......................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.
Alex.................................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.
Mages................................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.
Company A............................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.
Company B............................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.
Company C............................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.
Company D............................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.
Company E............................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.
Company F............................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.
Company G............................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.
Company H............................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.
All others not located in Russia........................................ 60.43 107.89 Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Represents the ``all others rate'' for this product; does not denote a company-specific margin percentage.
2De Minimis.
3Pure Magnesium Only.
4Alloy Magnesium Only.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our determinations. If one or both of our final determinations
are affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days
after the date of these preliminary determinations or 45 days after our
final determinations whether these imports are materially injuring, or
threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written
comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration no later than February 17, 1995,
and rebuttal briefs, no later than February 24, 1995. In accordance
with 19 CFR 353.38(b), 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
February 28, 1995, at 10:00 a.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce,
Room 1412, 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. If these investigations
proceed normally, we will make our final determinations by the 135th
day after the date of publication of the affirmative preliminary
determinations in the Federal Register.
These determinations is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the
Act and 19 CFR 353.15(a)(4).
Dated: October 27, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-27436 Filed 11-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P