[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 231 (Friday, December 2, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-29727]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 2, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-570-840]

 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Manganese Metal 
From the People's Republic of China (PRC)

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 2, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Easton or John Brinkmann, 
Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; 
telephone: (202) 482-1777 or (202) 482-5288, respectively.

Initiation of Investigation

The Petition

    On November 8, 1994, we received a petition filed in proper form 
from KMCC of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and ELKEM, of Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania (the petitioners). At the request of the Department of 
Commerce (the Department), the petitioners filed a supplement to 
support and clarify the data in the petition on November 22, 1994. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.12 (1994), the petitioners allege that 
manganese metal is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States 
at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and that these imports are 
materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Scope of Investigation

    The subject merchandise in this investigation is manganese metal, 
which is composed principally of manganese, by weight, but also 
contains some impurities such as carbon, sulfur, phosphorous, iron and 
silicon. Manganese metal contains by weight not less than 95 percent 
manganese. All compositions, forms and sizes of manganese metal are 
included within the scope of this investigation, including metal flake, 
powder, compressed powder, and fines. The subject merchandise is 
currently classifiable under subheadings 8111.00.45.00 and 
8111.00.60.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
proceeding is dispositive.

United States Price and Foreign Market Value

    The petitioners based United States price (USP) on observations of 
price quotations obtained for manganese metal from the PRC from 
December 1993 through May 1994. The terms of the prices observed in the 
salepersons' call reports included delivery to the customer. In 
calculating USP, the petitioners deducted a ten percent trading company 
commission, a U.S. port-to-customer delivery charge, imputed ocean 
freight, and U.S. duty. The Department did not allow the ten percent 
trading company commission as a deduction to U.S. price because 
petitioners could not support their assumption that the ten percent 
trading company commission applied to imports of manganese metal from 
the PRC.
    The petitioners contend that the PRC is a non-market economy (NME) 
country within the meaning of section 771(18)(A) of the Act. The 
Department has determined in all previous investigations that the PRC 
is an NME, and the presumption of NME status continues for purposes of 
initiation of this investigation. See, e.g., Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Paper Clips from the PRC, 59 FR 
51168 (October 7, 1994).
    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, foreign market value 
in NME cases is based on NME producers' factors of production, valued 
in a market economy country. Consistent with Department practice, 
absent evidence that the PRC government determines which of its 
factories shall produce for export to the United States, we intend, for 
purposes of this investigation, to base FMV only on those factories 
that produced manganese metal sold to the United States during the 
period of investigation (POI).
    In the course of this investigation, parties will have the 
opportunity to address our designation of the PRC as an NME and provide 
relevant information and argument related to the issues of the PRC's 
NME status and granting of separate rates to individual exporters. In 
addition, parties will have the opportunity in this investigation to 
submit comments on whether FMV should be based on prices or costs in 
the PRC consistent with section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act. See Amendment 
to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Amendment 
to Antidumping Duty Order: Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from the People's 
Republic of China, 57 FR 15052 (April 24, 1992).
    Conforming with Department practice, the petitioners calculated FMV 
on the basis of the valuation of the factors of production and, 
claiming that their production process is similar to the Chinese 
production process, based the factors of production on their own 
experience. The factors of production were valued, where possible, on 
publicly available published information pertaining to India. The 
petitioners argue that India is both a country at a comparable level of 
economic development to the PRC and a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise, thus meeting the requirements of section 
773(c)(4) of the Act. For purposes of this initiation, we have accepted 
India as an appropriate surrogate country selection.
    Where Indian values were not available, the petitioners valued the 
factors of production using either a ratio based on their own 
experience or their own costs.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the 
petitioners' FMV consisted of the sum of values assigned to materials, 
labor, energy, overhead and selling, general and administrative (SG&A) 
expenses. Certain of these factor values were adjusted for inflation. 
Pursuant to section 773(e)(1) of the Act, the petitioners added to the 
cost of manufacturing (COM), overhead and SG&A expenses, the statutory 
minimum of eight percent for profit.
    Based on our analysis of the petition and the subsequent supplement 
to the petition, we have made certain adjustments to the petitioners' 
FMV calculation as follows:

    (1) we disallowed all factors valued by using the petitioners' 
own costs;
    (2) we recalculated factory overhead and depreciation expenses 
using the statistics in the December 1992 Reserve Bank of India 
Bulletin. This source is publicly available and has been used to 
value factory overhead in other investigations of imports from the 
PRC;
    (3) for the purpose of initiating this investigation, we 
recalculated the valuation of several process chemicals, using data 
from the Chemical Marketing Reporter. This information was supplied 
by the petitioners in their November 22, 1994, supplement to the 
petition. We accepted this surrogate information for the purpose of 
initiating the investigation because it is information that is 
reasonably available to the petitioners for supporting their 
allegations, within the meaning of section 732(b) of the Act.
    (4) we recalculated electrical consumption using the industrial 
rate for electricity in Indonesia, an appropriate surrogate country 
at a comparable level of economic development to the PRC. In our 
recent investigations of magnesium from the PRC, we found that the 
Indian rate for electricity was inappropriate. See Preliminary 
Determinations of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determinations: Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from the 
People's Republic of China, 59 FR 55424, 55426, November 7, 1994.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on a comparison of USP and FMV, the petitioners' alleged 
dumping margins, as revised by the Department, range from 104.77 
percent to 143.32 percent.

Initiation of Investigation

    Pursuant to section 732(c) of the Act, the Department must 
determine, within 20 days after a petition is filed, whether a petition 
alleges the elements necessary for the imposition of a duty under 
section 731 of the Act and whether the petition contains information 
reasonably available to the petitioner supporting the allegations.
    We have examined the petition for manganese metal from the PRC, as 
amended, and have found that it meets the requirements of section 
732(b) of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping duty 
investigation to determine whether imports of manganese metal from the 
PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less 
than fair value. If this investigation proceeds normally, we will make 
our preliminary determination by April 27, 1995.

International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification

    Section 732(d) of the Act requires us to notify the ITC of this 
action and we have done so.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will determine by December 23, 1994, whether there is a 
reasonable indication that imports of manganese metal from the PRC are 
materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. 
industry. Pursuant to section 733(a) of the Act, a negative ITC 
determination will result in the investigation being terminated; 
otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to statutory and 
regulatory time limits.
    This notice is published pursuant to section 732(c)(2) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 353.13(b).

    Dated: November 28, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-29727 Filed 12-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P