[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60226-60228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29494]



[[Page 60226]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-570-840]


Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review of manganese metal from the People's Republic of 
China.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by Elkem Metals Company and Kerr-McGee 
Chemical Corporation and by China Hunan International Economic 
Development Corporation, China Metallurgical Import & Export Hunan 
Corporation/Hunan Nonferrous Metals Import & Export Associated 
Corporation, Minmetals Precious & Rare Minerals Import & Export 
Corporation, and China National Electronics Import and Export Hunan 
Company, the Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on manganese metal from the 
People's Republic of China. The period of review is June 14, 1995 
through January 31, 1997.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final 
results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs to 
assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between the export 
price and NV on all appropriate entries.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Lessard or Greg Campbell, 
Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Office I, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone (202) 482-1778 or (202) 482-2239, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, all references 
to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 353 (April 1997).

Background

    On February 6, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register (61 FR 4415) the antidumping duty 
order on manganese metal from the People's Republic of China (PRC). On 
February 3, 1997, we published a notice of opportunity to request an 
administrative review of the order for the period June 14, 1995 through 
January 31, 1997 (62 FR 4978). In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a), 
Elkem Metals Company and Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation (petitioners) 
and China Hunan International Economic Development Corporation (HIED), 
China Metallurgical Import & Export Hunan Corporation/Hunan Nonferrous 
Metals Import & Export Associated Corporation (CMIECHN/CNIECHN), and 
Minmetals Precious & Rare Minerals Import & Export Corporation 
(Minmetals) requested that we conduct an administrative review. On 
March 18, 1997, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c), we published a 
notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review (62 
FR 12793) for the period of review (POR).
    The Department is now conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

    The merchandise covered by this review 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 administrative review, 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.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified factor 
information provided by Xiang Tan Manganese Mine (XTMM) and Hunan 
Special Metal Material Plant (Special), using standard verification 
procedures, including on-site inspection of manufacturers' facilities, 
the examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection 
of original documentation containing relevant information. Our 
verification results are outlined in the public versions of the 
verification reports.

Separate Rates

1. Background and Summary of Findings

    It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of 
the merchandise subject to review in non-market-economy (NME) countries 
a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of 
government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports. 
To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of 
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department 
analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria established in the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China (56 FR 20588, May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as 
amplified in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China (59 FR 22585, May 
2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Evidence supporting, though not requiring, 
a finding of de jure absence of government control over export 
activities includes: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations 
associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; 
(2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and 
(3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control 
of companies. See Sparklers at 20589. A de facto analysis of absence of 
government control over exports is based on four factors--whether the 
respondent: (1) Sets its own export prices independent from the 
government and other exporters; (2) can retain the proceeds from its 
export sales; (3) has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts; 
and (4) has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of 
management. See Silicon Carbide at 22587; see also Sparklers at 20589.
    In our final determination of sales at less than fair value (LTFV), 
the Department determined that there was de jure and de facto absence 
of government control of each company's export activities and 
determined that each company warranted a company-

[[Page 60227]]

specific dumping margin. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 
56045 (Manganese Metal). For this period of review, HIED and CMIECHN/
CNIECHN have responded to the Department's request for information 
regarding separate rates. We have found that the evidence on the record 
is consistent with the final determination in the LTFV investigation 
and continues to demonstrate an absence of government control, both in 
law and in fact, with respect to their exports, in accordance with the 
criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.
    For Minmetal and China National Electronics Import and Export Hunan 
Company (CEIEC), which had no sales during this POR, the company-
specific rates of 5.88 percent and 11.77 percent, respectively, from 
the LTFV investigation remain unchanged.

Export Price

    For sales made by HIED and CMIECHN/CNIECHN to the United States, we 
calculated an export price, in accordance with section 772(a) of the 
Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to unrelated purchasers 
in the United States prior to importation into the United States.
    We calculated export price based on the price to unrelated 
purchasers. We deducted an amount, when appropriate, for foreign inland 
freight, ocean freight, and marine insurance. Generally, the costs for 
these items were valued in the surrogate country. However, where 
transportation services were purchased from market economy carriers and 
paid for in market economy currency, we used the cost actually incurred 
by the exporter.

Normal Value

    For companies located in NME countries, section 773(c)(1) of the 
Act provides that the Department shall determine normal value (NV) 
using a factors-of-production methodology if (1) the merchandise is 
exported from an NME country, and (2) the information does not permit 
the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, 
or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act.
    The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all 
previous antidumping cases. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 
the Act, any determination that a foreign country is a NME country 
shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. 
None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment in 
this review. Furthermore, available information does not permit the 
calculation of NV using home market prices, third country prices or CV 
under section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, we treated the PRC as a NME 
country for purposes of this review and calculated NV by valuing the 
factors of production in a comparable market economy country which is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise. Factors of production 
include, but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) 
quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other 
utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital cost, including 
depreciation.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act and section 
353.52(c) of our regulations, we determined that India is comparable to 
the PRC in terms of (1) per capita gross national product (GNP), (2) 
the growth rate in per capita GNP, and (3) the national distribution of 
labor. In addition, India is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise. Therefore, for this review, we selected India as the 
surrogate on the basis of the above criteria, and have used publicly 
available information relating to India, unless otherwise noted, to 
value the various factors of production. (See memorandum to Susan 
Kuhbach from Jeff May, dated May 28, 1997, ``Manganese Metal from the 
PRC: Nonmarket Economy Status and Surrogate Country Selection'' 
(attached to June 25, 1997 letters to interested parties), and 
memorandum to Richard W. Moreland from Team, dated October 24, 1997, 
which are in the file in the Central Records Unit (room B099 of the 
Main Commerce building).)
    For purposes of calculating NV, we valued PRC factors of 
production, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. In 
examining surrogate values, we selected, where possible, the publicly 
available value which was: (1) An average non-export value; (2) 
representative of a range of prices within the POR or most 
contemporaneous with the POR; (3) product-specific; and (4) tax-
exclusive. Where we could not obtain a POR-representative price for an 
appropriate surrogate value, we selected a value in accordance with the 
remaining criteria mentioned above and which was the closest in time to 
the POR. In accordance with this methodology, we valued the factors as 
follows:
     We valued manganese ore using a September 1993 export 
price quote from a Brazilian manganese mine for manganese carbonate 
lump ore. (For a further discussion of this issue, please refer to the 
October 24, 1997 memorandum to Richard W. Moreland from Team.) While it 
is our normal practice to apply an inflation adjustment to prices 
predating the period of review, in this case, we have information which 
indicates that prices for manganese ore have fallen over time. 
Therefore, we adjusted the price to account for declining manganese ore 
prices between September 1993 and the POR.
     For the value of process chemicals used in the production 
process of manganese metal, we used values obtained from the following 
Indian sources: Indian Chemical Weekly (June 95-May 1996); the Monthly 
Trade Statistics of Foreign Trade of India, Volume II--Imports, 
February 1996 (Indian Import Statistics); and the Indian Minerals 
Yearbook: 1995. Where necessary, we adjusted these values to reflect 
inflation up to the POR using wholesale price indices (WPI) published 
by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Additionally, we adjusted to 
account for freight costs incurred between the suppliers and manganese 
metal producers.
     For labor values, we used data from the 1996 Yearbook of 
Labor Statistics (YLS) published by the United Nations. We adjusted 
these rates to reflect inflation up to the POR using the consumer price 
indices (CPI) published by the IMF. We used the CPI, rather than the 
WPI, for calculating the inflation adjustment for labor because the 
Department views the CPI as more representative of changes in wage 
rates, while the WPI is more representative of prices for material 
goods.
     For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses (SG&A), and profit values, we used information from the 
January 1997 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin for the Indian industry 
group ``Processing and Manufacturing: Metals, Chemicals, and Products 
Thereof.'' To value factory overhead, we calculated the ratio of 
factory overhead expenses to the cost of materials, labor, and energy. 
From the same source, we were able to calculate the selling, general & 
administrative (SG&A) expense as a percentage of the cost of 
manufacturing and profit as a percentage of the cost of production 
(i.e., the cost of manufacturing plus SG&A).
     For most packing materials values, we used the per 
kilogram values obtained from the Indian Import Statistics. For one 
packing material, we used a price quote from an Indian manufacturer and 
adjusted the value to reflect inflation up to the POR using the WPI 
published by the IMF. We used this price quote rather than the Indian 
Import Statistics because the quoted

[[Page 60228]]

price was for the appropriate type of container used, whereas the 
Indian Import Statistics were aggregated over various types of 
containers. We made further adjustments to account for freight costs 
incurred between the PRC supplier and manganese metal producers.
     To value electricity, we used the average rate applicable 
to large industrial users throughout India as reported in the 1995 
Confederation of Indian Industries Handbook of Statistics. We adjusted 
the March 1, 1995 value to reflect inflation up to the POR using the 
WPI published by the IMF.
     To value rail freight, we relied upon rates quoted by a 
manganese mine in India. We adjusted the rate to reflect inflation up 
to the POR using WPI published by the IMF.
     To value truck freight, we used a rate derived from a 
newspaper article in the April 20, 1994 issue of The Times of India. We 
adjusted the rate to reflect inflation up to the POR using WPI 
published by the IMF.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our comparison of the EP to NV, we preliminarily 
determine that the following dumping margins exist for the period June 
14, 1995, through January 31, 1997:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                   Manufacturer exporter                      (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIED.......................................................        11.00
CMIECHN/CNIECHN............................................         6.43
Minmetals..................................................         5.88
CEIEC......................................................        11.77
Country-Wide Rate..........................................       143.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held approximately 44 days after the publication of 
this notice. Interested parties may submit written comments (case 
briefs) within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), which must be limited to issues 
raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after 
the date of publication. The Department will issue a notice of final 
results of this administrative review, including the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments, within 120 days 
of publication of these preliminary results.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between EP and NV may vary from the percentages stated 
above. We have calculated an importer-specific duty assessment rate 
based on the ratio of the total amount of AD duties calculated for the 
examined sales made during the POR to the total value of subject 
merchandise entered during the POR. In order to estimate the entered 
value, we subtracted international movement expenses (e.g., 
international freight and marine insurance) from the gross sales value. 
This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of that particular 
importer made during the POR. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be 
effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative 
review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for the PRC 
companies that have separate rates and were reviewed (HIED and CMIECN/
CNIECN), the cash deposit rates will be the rates for these firms 
established in the final results of this review; (2) for Minmetals and 
CEIEC, which we determined to be entitled to a separate rate in the 
LTFV investigation but which did not have shipments to the United 
States during the POR, the rates will continue to be 5.88 percent and 
11.77 percent, respectively, the rates which currently apply to these 
companies; and (3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate 
will be 143.32 percent. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: October 31, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-29494 Filed 11-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P