[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15770-15772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8824]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-834-805]


Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Beryllium Metal and 
High Beryllium Alloys From Kazakhstan

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Grebasch at (202) 482-3773 or 
Erik Warga at (202) 482-0922, Office of Antidumping Investigations, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigation

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'') by 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA'').

The Petition

    On March 14, 1996, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
received a petition filed in proper form by Brush Wellman Inc. 
(``petitioner''), a domestic producer of beryllium metal and high 
beryllium alloys (``beryllium''). The Department received supplemental 
information to the petition on March 28, and March 29, and April 1, 
1996.
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, petitioner alleges 
that imports of beryllium from Kazakhstan are being, or are likely to 
be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the 
meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially 
injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
    Petitioner claims that it has standing to file the petition because 
it is an interested party, as defined under section 771(9)(C) of the 
Act.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act requires the Department to 
determine, prior to the initiation of an investigation, that a minimum 
percentage of the domestic industry

[[Page 15771]]
supports an antidumping petition. A petition meets these minimum 
requirements if the domestic producers or workers who support the 
petition account for (1) at least 25 percent of the total production of 
the domestic like product; and (2) more than 50 percent of the 
production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the 
industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition.
    A review of the production data provided in the petition and other 
information readily available to the Department indicates that 
petitioner accounts for more than 50 percent of the total production of 
the domestic like product thus meeting the standard of 732(c)(4)(A) and 
requiring no further action by the Department pursuant to 732(c)(4)(D). 
Accordingly, the Department determines that the petition is supported 
by the domestic industry.

Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation is beryllium metal and high 
beryllium alloys with a beryllium content equal to or greater than 30 
percent by weight, whether in ingot, billet, powder, block, lump, 
chunk, blank, or other semifinished form. These are intermediate or 
semifinished products that require further machining, casting and/or 
fabricating into sheet, extrusions, forgings or other shapes in order 
to meet the specifications of the end user. Beryllium and high 
beryllium alloys within the scope of this investigation are 
classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) 8112.11.6000, 8112.11.3000, 7601.20.9075, and 7601.20.9090. 
Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is 
dispositive.

Export Price

    Petitioner based export price on FAS Customs values reported in 
1995 Bureau of Census data for HTS categories 8112.11.3000 (waste and 
scrap) and 8112.11.6000 (unwrought beryllium and beryllium powder). For 
purposes of this initiation, we have disallowed the data regarding the 
importation of waste and scrap because the majority of the shipment in 
question was non-subject merchandise.

Normal Value

    Petitioner asserts that Kazakhstan is a non-market economy country 
(NME) within the meaning of sections 771(18) of the Act. In previous 
investigations, the Department has determined that Kazakhstan is an 
NME, and in accordance with section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act, the 
presumption of NME status continues for the initiation of this 
investigation. See, e.g., Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Ferrosilicon from Kazakhstan and Ukraine; and Postponement 
of Final Determination; Ferrosilicon from the Russian Federation, 58 FR 
13050 (March 9, 1993). Accordingly, the normal value of the product 
should be based on the producer's factors of production, valued in a 
surrogate market economy country in accordance with section 773(c) of 
the Act.
    In the course of this investigation, all parties will have the 
opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of 
Kazakhstan's NME status and the granting of separate rates to 
individual exporters. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the PRC, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 
1994).
    It is our practice in NME cases to calculate NV based on the 
factors of production of those factories that produced the subject 
merchandise (in this case, beryllium) sold to the United States during 
the period of investigation.
    Petitioner based the Kazak producers' factors of production as 
defined by section 773(c)(3) of the Act (raw materials, labor, energy 
and capital cost) for beryllium on petitioner's own usage amounts, 
adjusted for known differences in the production processes. In 
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, petitioner valued these 
factors, where possible, on publicly available published Brazilian 
data. Where this data was unavailable, petitioner used other acceptable 
sources of information.
    Petitioner states that because the per capita GNP of Brazil and 
Kazakstan are relatively close, the two countries may be considered 
economically comparable. Further, petitioner has stated that while 
Brazil does not produce beryllium, it does produce beryl ore, a major 
input of beryllium. Based on these factors, petitioner argued that 
Brazil is an acceptable surrogate country, in accordance with 773(c)(4) 
of the Act, because its level of economic development is comparable to 
that of Kazakstan and Brazil is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise.
    Petitioner was unable to find data on factory overhead from an 
appropriate industry in Brazil; however, petitioner states that the 
first half of the production process for beryllium is similar to the 
production of uranium from ore. Therefore, petitioner used data for a 
Canadian uranium producer from the public record of the antidumping 
proceeding involving uranium from Kazakstan and other former USSR 
countries (See Antidumping; Uranium from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, 
Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan; Suspension of 
Investigations and Amendment of Preliminary Determinations (57 FR 
49220, October 30, 1992)) to value overhead. With respect to general 
expenses, petitioner was unable to obtain information regarding the 
general expenses from any closely related industry (e.g., beryllium or 
uranium). Therefore, petitioner has used information on a Brazilian 
silicomanganese company from the record of the antidumping duty 
proceeding involving silicomanganese from Brazil (Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicomanganese From 
Brazil (59 FR 55432, November 7, 1994)) as the only information 
reasonably available.
    Petitioner based profit incorrectly on the statutory eight percent 
minimum contained in the pre-URAA laws. This provision was specifically 
deleted from the URAA. Petitioner provided no reasonable grounds for 
the Department to assume that a figure of eight percent for profit is 
appropriate. Because petitioner has provided no other information, we 
have disallowed this figure for purposes of this initiation.
    Based on comparisons of EP to the factors of production, the 
calculated dumping margin for beryllium from Kazakstan, after 
adjustments made by the Department, is 22.83 percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that imports of beryllium from Kazakstan are being, or are 
likely to be, sold at less than fair value.

Initiation of Investigation

    We have examined the petition on beryllium and have found that it 
meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act, including the 
requirements concerning allegations of the material injury or threat of 
material injury to the domestic producers of a domestic like product by 
reason of the complained-of imports, allegedly sold at less than fair 
value. Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping duty investigation 
to determine whether imports of beryllium from Kazakstan are being, or 
are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. 
Unless extended, we will make our preliminary determination by August 
21, 1996.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the

[[Page 15772]]
public version of the petition has been provided to the representatives 
of the government of Kazakstan. We will attempt to provide a copy of 
the public version of the petition to the exporter named in the 
petition.

International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will determine by April 28, 1996, whether there is a 
reasonable indication that imports of beryllium from Kazakstan are 
causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a 
U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will result in the 
investigation being terminated; otherwise, the investigation will 
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    Dated: April 3, 1996.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Investigations.
[FR Doc. 96-8824 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P