[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4415-4418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2368]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-840]


Notice of Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: 
Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 6, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Boyland or Daniel Lessard, 
Office of Countervailing Duty Investigations, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, at 
(202) 482-4198 or (202) 482-1778, respectively.

Amendment to the Final Determination

    We are amending the final determination of sales at less than fair 
value of manganese metal from the People's Republic of China (the PRC) 
to reflect the correction of ministerial errors made in the margin 
calculations in that determination. We are publishing this amendment to 
the final determination in accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(c).

Case History and Amendment of the Final Determination

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), on November 6, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published its final determination that manganese metal from 
the PRC was being sold at less than fair value (see 60 FR 56045 
(November 6, 1995)).
    On November 20, 1995, petitioners, Kerr McGee and Elkem Metals 
Company, and respondents, China National Electronics Import & Export 
Hunan Company (CEIEC), China Hunan International Economic Development 
Corporation (HIED), China Metallurgical Import & Export Hunan Corp. and 
Hunan Nonferrous Metals Import & Export Associated Co. (CMIECHN/
CNIECHN), and Minmetals Precious & Rare Minerals Import & Export Co. 
(Minmetals) made allegations that the Department made ministerial 
errors in its final determination. On November 22, 1995 and November 
28, 1995, rebuttal comments were submitted by petitioners and 
respondents, respectively.
    Because the choice and application of a specific surrogate 
manganese ore value is not a clerical error pursuant to 19 CFR 
353.28(d), as petitioners acknowledged in their submission, the 
Department has not considered the arguments raised by petitioners or 
respondents with regard to this issue.
    As listed below, Allegations 1 through 5 were made by petitioners 
and Allegations 6 through 10 were made by respondents. Each summarized 
allegation, including any comment submitted by petitioners or 
respondents in response to the allegation, is followed by the 
Department's response (see also November 30, 1995 memorandum to Barbara 
Stafford, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Investigations).

[[Page 4416]]


Allegation 1

    According to petitioners, the surrogate ore value used at the final 
determination requires that the Department adjust the usage levels of 
direct process chemicals used in the production of subject merchandise.
    Respondents argue that petitioners' allegation is not a clerical 
error, but rather an argument for a methodological change. Respondents 
also argue that considering this new methodological argument reopens 
the record and violates respondents' due process rights.

DOC Position

    We agree with respondents that petitioners' claim is not a clerical 
error pursuant to 19 CFR 353.28(d). Furthermore, the information 
supporting petitioners' clerical error allegation represents untimely-
filed new information. Accordingly, the Department has not considered 
this issue and has removed the information submitted by petitioners in 
support of this argument, as well as respondents' rebuttal to this 
information, from the record (see 19 CFR 353.31(a)(3)).

Allegation 2

    Petitioners allege the following: 1) the calculations of skilled 
and unskilled labor hours for Producer A were not provided in existing 
documentation, 2) the allocation of Processor B's skilled versus 
unskilled labor and direct versus indirect labor was not provided in 
existing documentation, 3) the verification report for Processor C 
refers to a July 11, 1995 document regarding labor which is not on the 
record, and 4) the calculations for Producer D's unskilled labor do not 
match the documentation provided.
    With respect to the above allegation, respondents argue in general 
that the Department's labor calculations are based on verified 
information, as stated in the verification reports.

DOC Position

    While the calculation of Producer A's skilled and unskilled labor 
could have been outlined more clearly, the Department does not consider 
the absence of a full explanation of this producer's labor calculations 
to be a clerical error.
    The verification report of Processor B explains that both the 
skilled and unskilled labor values were verified from production 
records which were not taken as verification exhibits. As noted above, 
the absence of a detailed description of Processor B's labor 
calculations does not constitute a clerical error.
    With respect to Processor C, the verification report was referring 
to the July 17, 1995 submission by respondents, not to a July 11, 1995 
report. This error, in the narrative of the verification report, had no 
impact on the calculation of labor. When reexamining Processor C's cost 
of manufacture (COM), however, it was found that estimated indirect 
labor was omitted. (Note: the final determination stated that indirect 
labor would be added to the extent that indirect labor could be 
quantified (see 60 FR 56050 (November 6, 1995)). Because the 
calculation for Processor C's estimated indirect labor yields a 
positive number, unlike Processor B above, estimated indirect labor has 
been added to Processor C's COM for the amended final determination.
    Finally, although the Department did not outline its calculation of 
Producer D's unskilled labor, the information necessary to derive this 
value is contained in the narrative of the verification report and in 
the referenced exhibit. As indicated above, the Department does not 
consider the absence of a detailed explanation of Producer D's labor 
calculations to be a clerical error. The subsequent reexamination of 
Producer D's labor values, however, has led the Department to revise 
the original unskilled labor value to include indirect labor 
inadvertently excluded from the unskilled labor calculation. For the 
amended final determination, the Department has used a labor value 
which reflects direct and indirect labor.

Allegation 3

    Petitioners allege that, for all respondents, the calculated 
freight cost is inconsistent with the methodology described in the 
calculation memorandum. Specifically, the calculated truck rates are 
lower than the methodology and data would indicate. According to 
petitioners, the discrepancies do not appear to be explained by 
rounding errors.

DOC Position

    The calculation memorandum inadvertently excluded one element from 
the explanation of the methodology employed. The calculation memorandum 
should have stated that, in addition to the distance and transportation 
rate, the factor usage of each input is multiplied by the relative 
weight. The calculations for freight costs in the margin calculations 
were reexamined and determined to be correct.

Allegation 4

    Petitioners allege that HIED's margin, as shown on the Department's 
calculation spreadsheet, does not match the HIED margin published in 
the Federal Register notice for the final determination. Petitioners 
also argue that, based on the underlying values in HIED's spreadsheet 
calculations and supporting data, HIED's margin should be 4.47 percent.

DOC Position

    Petitioners are correct. The final margin listed in the final 
determination notice was incorrect. Additionally, the total value 
column (TOTVAL) is HIED's margin calculation was incorrectly calculated 
as gross U.S. price (USP) times quantity. TOTVAL should have been net 
USP times total quantity. Since this is a clerical error, HIED's TOTVAL 
has been recalculated using net USP for the amended final 
determination.

Allegation 5

    Petitioners argue that the September 19, 1995 verification report 
for Producer E indicates that electricity consumption for July 1995 was 
an amount different than that shown in verification exhibits.
    Respondents do not dispute that the Department transposed the July 
electricity consumption figure. However, they assert that the 
Department's methodology for deriving Producer E's electricity cost is 
incorrect and should be corrected using respondents' suggested 
methodology.

DOC Position

    Petitioners are correct. The verification report inadvertently 
transposed Producer E's electricity usage for July. Since this is a 
clerical error, the correct number has been used to recalculate 
Producer E's COM. Because respondents' allegation is based on changing 
the method by which Producer E's electricity consumption is calculated, 
the Department considers this to be a methodological argument, as 
opposed to a clerical error, and has not made the change recommended by 
respondents.

Allegation 6

    Respondents allege that there are a number of mathematical errors 
in the Department's foreign market value (FMV) calculations.
    Petitioners' rebuttal does not substantially deviate from the 
Department's finding below.

DOC Position

    The Department's FMV calculations have been reexamined and compared 
to the FMV calculation submitted by 

[[Page 4417]]
respondents. The Department has concluded that the mathematical errors 
cited by respondents are not errors but are due solely to rounding.

Allegation 7

    Respondents allege that the Department incorrectly adjusted the 
content level of a particular input for Producers E and F.
    With the exception of indicating that the difference between the 
input usages for Producer F, as calculated by respondents and the 
Department, was likely due to a rounding error, petitioners' rebuttal 
does not deviate substantially from the Department's finding below.

DOC Position

    The calculation values provided by respondents for the input 
adjustment are not correct. Because the Department's adjustment, as 
outlined in its calculation memorandum, is reflected correctly in the 
FMV calculation of Producers E and F, no change has been made pursuant 
to respondents' allegation.

Allegation 8

    Respondents allege that a value for ``rates and taxes'' was 
incorrectly included in SG&A because, according to the Department's 
final determination, the FMV was to be ``net for all taxes.'' 
Additionally, citing the December 19, 1994 calculation memorandum for 
the final determination of Coumarin from the People's Republic of China 
(Coumarin), respondents argue that it has been the Department's past 
practice not to include ``rates and taxe'' from the Reserve Bank of 
India Bulletin (RBI) in SG&A.
    Citing to Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al., 60 FR 10900 (February 
28, 1995), petitioners assert that respondents' argument that ``rates 
and taxes'' should not be included in the FMV is unsupported by 
precedent. According to petitioners, respondents are incorrect in 
relying on Coumarin because in that case the question of whether to 
include or exclude ``rates and taxes'' from SG&A was not raised.

DOC Position

    In determining FMV, the Department intended to follow its standard 
practice, which is to employ tax-exclusive factors of production values 
and to include a value for ``rates and taxes'' in the calculation of 
SG&A. The Department assumes that ``rates and taxes'' refer to utility 
costs, such as sewer rates, and property taxes. Such expenses are 
properly included within the Department's calculation of the FMV 
because they reflect required expenses incurred in producing the 
subject merchandise that were not rebated upon export.
    Furthermore, whether ``rates and taxes'' should be included in SG&A 
was not an issue in Coumarin. Therefore, the case provides no guidance 
or precedent here.
    Moreover, while respondents quote the Department as saying in the 
final determination of this case that the FMV was to be ``net of all 
taxes,'' the statement was actually ``net of taxes'' and was referring 
to the sentence before which specifically addressed the Indian 
surrogate values used in calculating the factors of production.
    Finally, we note that the issue of whether ``rates and taxes'' 
should be included within SG&A is substantive, not clerical.

Allegation 9

    Respondents allege that in determining SG&A the Department 
incorrectly used 296 instead of 204 when valuing ``rates and taxes'' 
from the RBI. In response, petitioners note that the Department 
incorrectly calculated SG&A when it used 188 instead of 296 for the 
``advertisement'' expense as listed in the RBI.

DOC Position

    Respondents, as well as petitioners, are correct. Using the correct 
RBI values, SG&A is 19.39 percent, as opposed to the 19.34 percent used 
in the final determination.

Allegation 10

    Respondents assert that the Department incorrectly deducted a value 
for marine insurance from Minmetal's USP.
    Petitioners' rebuttal does not deviate substantially from the 
Department's finding below.

DOC Position

    The verification report of Minmetal states that ``we noted no 
discrepancies with respect to the marine insurance information reported 
in Minmetal's responses and U.S. sales listing.'' The verification 
report also states that the ``marine insurance was contracted with a 
Chinese company'' and that ``Minmetal was invoiced in U.S. dollars.'' 
Accordingly, the Department's deduction of a surrogate value for marine 
insurance from Minmental's USP was appropriate and did not represent a 
clerical error.

Scope of Order

    The product covered by this order 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 8111.00.45.000 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.

Antidumping Duty Order

    In accordance with section 735(a) of the Act, on October 27, 1995, 
the Department made its final determination that manganese metal from 
the PRC was being sold at less than fair value (60 FR 56045 (November 
6, 1995)). On December 15, 1995, the International Trade Commission 
notified the Department of its final determination, pursuant to section 
735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured by reason of imports of the subject merchandise.
    Therefore, all unliquidated entries of manganese metal from the PRC 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 
14, 1995, which is the date on which the Department published its 
notice of preliminary determination in the Federal Register (see 60 FR 
31282 (June 14, 1995)), are liable for the assessment of antidumping 
duties.
    In accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department 
will direct Customs officers to assess, upon further advice by the 
administering authority, antidumping duties equal to the amount by 
which the foreign market value of the merchandise exceeds the United 
States price for all relevant entries of manganese metal from the PRC. 
Customs officers must require, at the same time as importers would 
normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, a cash deposit 
equal to the estimated weighted-average antidumping duty margins as 
noted below. The ``PRC-wide'' rate applies to all exporters of subject 
merchandise not specifically listed below.
    The ad valorem weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

[[Page 4418]]


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
                 Manufacture/producer/exporter                   Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CEIEC.........................................................     11.77
CMIECHN/CNIECHN...............................................      0.97
HIED..........................................................      4.60
Minmetal......................................................      5.88
PRC-wide Rate.................................................    143.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to 
manganese metal from the PRC pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. 
Interested parties may contact the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of 
the Main Commerce Building, for copies of an updated list of 
antidumping orders currently in effect.
    This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 353.21.

    Dated: January 19, 1996.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-2368 Filed 2-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M