[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