[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 49 (Friday, March 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12440-12449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-6551]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-840]
Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China; Final
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on manganese
[[Page 12441]]
metal from the People's Republic of China.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On Friday November 7, 1997 the Department of Commerce
published the preliminary results of its 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.
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made changes to
the margins calculated in the preliminary results, including
corrections of certain clerical errors. Therefore, the final results
differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping
margins are listed below in the section entitled ``Final Results of
Review.''
We have determined that sales have been made below normal value
during the period of review. Accordingly, we will instruct the US
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on the difference
between export price and normal value.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 13, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Campbell or Cynthia Thirumalai,
Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Group I, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone (202) 482-2239 or (202) 482-4087, respectively.
APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS: 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).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 7, 1997, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published in the Federal Register the preliminary results
of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on manganese
metal from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). See Manganese
Metal from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 60226 (November 7, 1997)
(``Preliminary Results''). We gave interested parties an opportunity to
comment on our preliminary results and held a public hearing on
November 19, 1997. The following parties submitted comments: Elkem
Metals Company and Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation (together comprising
the ``petitioners''), and China Hunan International Economic
Development Corporation (``HIED'') and China Metallurgical Import &
Export Hunan Corporation/Hunan Nonferrous Metals Import & Export
Associated Corporation (``CMIECHN/CNIECHN'') (together comprising the
``respondents''). We have conducted this administrative review in
accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.22.
Scope of Review
The merchandise covered by this review is manganese metal, which is
composed principally, by weight, of manganese, 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, the written description of the scope
of this proceeding is dispositive.
Rescission
The Department received responses from Minmetals Precious & Rare
Minerals Import & Export Co. (``Minmetals'') and China National
Electronics Import and Export Hunan Company (``CEIEC'') indicating that
they had not shipped any subject merchandise during the POR. We
confirmed with the US Customs Service that this was correct. Consistent
with our administrative practice, therefore, we have rescinded our
review of Minmetals and CEIEC. See Certain Cased Pencils from the
People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission
of Antidumping Administrative Review, 62 FR 1734 (January 13, 1997)
(rescinded review in part with respect to the respondents which the
Department determined had made no shipments of subject merchandise
during the POR). See also 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), 62 FR 27296 (May 19,
1997) (although this review is not governed by these new regulations,
they do reflect current Department practice.).
Separate Rates
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, and Sparklers at 20589.
In our final determination in the investigation 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-
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 (February 6, 1996) (``LTFV investigation''). 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
[[Page 12442]]
control, both in law and in fact, with respect to their exports, in
accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon
Carbide.
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 and a
constructed export price (``CEP'') methodology was not warranted.
We calculated the export price based on the price to unrelated
purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate we deducted an
amount for foreign inland freight, ocean freight, and marine insurance.
Generally, these costs 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
1. Non-Market Economy Status
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
constructed value (``CV'') under section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore,
we treated the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this review, and
calculated NV by valuing the factors of production in a market economy
country at a comparable level of economic development and 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. See Section 773(c)(3) of the Act.
2. Surrogate Country
In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act and 19 CFR
353.52(c), 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 ferromanganese, which for
this proceeding the Department has determined to be comparable
merchandise. Therefore, for this review we have selected India as the
surrogate country 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, Nonmarket Economy Status and Surrogate Country
Selection, May 28, 1997 (attached to June 25, 1997 letters to
interested parties), and Memorandum to Richard W. Moreland, From the
Team, October 24, 1997. (A public version of all documents on the
record cited in this notice can be obtained from the Central Records
Unit (room B099 of the main Department of Commerce building).)
3. Factors of Production
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, where possible we selected the publicly
available value which was: (1) An average non-export value; (2)
representative of a range of prices within the period of review
(``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. For a more detailed explanation of the
methodology used in calculating the various surrogate values, see
Memorandum to the File, From the Case Team, Calculations for the Final
Determination, March 9, 1998. In accordance with this methodology, we
have valued the factors as described below.
We valued manganese ore using a September 1993 export price quote
from a Brazilian manganese mine for manganese carbonate lump ore (see
Comment 3). While it is our normal practice to apply an inflation
adjustment to prices predating the period of review, information on the
record indicates that prices for world-traded manganese ore have fallen
over time. Therefore, we adjusted the price to account for declining
manganese ore world 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 1995-May 1996); the Monthly Trade
Statistics of Foreign Trade of India, Volume II--Imports, (February
1996); and the 1995 Indian Minerals Yearbook (``IMY''). Where
necessary, we adjusted these values to reflect inflation up to the POR
using an Indian wholesale price index (``WPI'') published by the
International Monetary Fund (IMF). Additionally, we adjusted these
values, where appropriate, to account for differences in chemical
content and to account for freight costs incurred between the suppliers
and manganese metal producers.
To value the labor input, 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 an Indian consumer
price index (``CPI'') published by the IMF. We used the CPI, rather
than the WPI, for calculating the inflation adjustment to 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. See Heavy Forged Hand Tools From the People's Republic of China;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 11813,
11816 (March 13, 1997).
For selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), factory
overhead, and profit values, we used information from the January 1997
Reserve Bank of India Bulletin for the Indian industrial grouping
``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 particular packing
material, we
[[Page 12443]]
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 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.
Changes Subsequent to Preliminary Results
The Department has made the changes indicated below to its margin
calculations pursuant to comments received from interested parties. We
note that because business proprietary treatment was requested by the
respondents for certain factor inputs, these inputs will be referred to
in the discussion below only as ``Factor A,'' ``Factor B,'' ``Factor
C,'' etc. A key to this naming convention is provided in an attachment
to the Memorandum to the File, From the Case Team, Calculations for the
Final Determination (March 9, 1998).
Rather than using the 82-84% MnO2 ore series listed in the 1995
Indian Minerals Yearbook, we are now using an ore price submitted by
the respondents from an Indian ore producer to value ``Factor B.''
In the Preliminary Results, we considered the expense items
``provident fund'' and ``employee welfare expense,'' as taken from the
Reserve Bank of India Bulletin, to be part of factory overhead.
Following previous Department decisions, however, in these Final
Results we have determined that these expenses are included in the
direct labor costs. Consequently, these expenses have been excluded
from the components of factory overhead.
We have changed the conversion factor used in converting liters to
cubic centimeters in the calculation of the per unit cost of packing
material ``Factor L.'' The conversion factor used in the preliminary
results was incorrect.
Analysis of Comments Received
We received comments from interested parties regarding the
following topics:
1. Valuation of Factors of Production
(a) Ore
(b) Electricity
(c) Labor
(d) Chemicals
(e) Overhead, SG&A and Profit
(f) Packing
2. Valuation of By-product Credit
3. Combined Rates
Summaries of the comments and rebuttals, as well as the
Department's responses to the comments, are included below. For a more
in-depth analysis of the various surrogate options see Memorandum to
Richard W. Moreland, From the Manganese Metal Team, (October 24, 1997).
1. Valuation of Factors of Production
(a) Ore Valuation
Comment 1: The petitioners argue that a price provided by Sandur
Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (``Sandur'') for a manganese ore with 46-48%
contained manganese is the best ore surrogate because this ore can be
used to make manganese metal, its manganese-to-iron ratio is very close
to that of the ore actually used by the respondents (``PRC ore''), and
it represents a domestic Indian transaction price.
The respondents contend that the Sandur ore is not chemically
comparable to that ore actually used by the PRC producers because of
the very significant difference in the manganese contents between the
two. The respondents cite information on the record indicating that
manganese content is a more important determinant of ore price than the
manganese-to-iron ratio.
Department's Position: The Department disagrees with the
petitioners' contention that the Sandur price is the best ore surrogate
option available. Information provided by the manganese industry expert
at the US Geological Survey (the ``Department's expert'') indicates
that manganese content is generally a more important determinant of ore
prices than the manganese-to-iron ratio. See Memorandum to the File,
From the Team, (October 14, 1997). Furthermore, according to the
Department's expert, adjustments to ore prices to account for
differences in the manganese contents of the PRC and surrogate ores
would be reasonable only if the differences were small. The magnitude
of difference in manganese contents between the PRC and Sandur ores
suggests that the price of the latter is not representative of the
value of the PRC ore. Moreover, the record is not explicit as to
whether the Sandur price quote is an export price quote or a domestic
price. For these reasons, the Department does not consider the Sandur
ore price to be the best available surrogate in this review.
Comment 2: The respondents argue in favor of using a domestic
Indian price for an ore produced by a certain Indian manganese ore
producer (``Producer X''). This price is the most suitable ore
surrogate value, the respondents maintain, because the ore from
Producer X has a manganese content very similar to that of the PRC ore.
The respondents cite expert testimony on the record that this
particular ore could theoretically be used to produce manganese metal.
The petitioners counter, citing other expert testimony on record, that
Producer X's ore is an unsuitable surrogate because its low manganese-
to-iron ratio as well as certain other chemical features would prevent
it from being used in manganese metal manufacture.
Department's Position: We disagree with the respondents' contention
that the ore from the Indian Producer X is the best possible surrogate
for the primary ore input in this review. Information on the record
from the Department's expert indicates that ore in India with a similar
manganese content as that of Producer X's ore is generally not used as
the primary ore input in manganese metal production for reasons
pertaining to the ore's chemistry. See Memorandum to the File, From
Daniel Lessard, May 3, 1995 (included in the record of this review as
an attachment to the October 10, 1997 Memorandum to the File, From the
Team). The expert's opinion is further confirmed by information
contained in the 1995 Indian Minerals Yearbook (``IMY''), which
indicates that both the manganese content and the manganese-to-iron
ratio of Producer X's ore fall below those of a range of standardized
specifications for ore used in Indian ferromanganese manufacture.
Moreover, the manganese content of the Brazilian surrogate used by the
Department is closer to that of the PRC ore than the content of
Producer X's ore. The Department also notes that the manganese-to-iron
ratio of ore from Producer X is significantly below the minimum
threshold argued by the
[[Page 12444]]
petitioners as necessary for producing manganese metal.
Comment 3: The petitioners argue that the surrogate ore must be
similar to the PRC ore, most importantly with regard to its manganese-
to-iron ratio, so that adjustments would not have to be made to other
quantitative inputs. The petitioners continue, however, that though
chemically similar to the PRC ore, the Brazilian ore value used by the
Department is not the best surrogate choice because (1) Brazil is not
among the Department's list of eligible surrogate countries for the
PRC, (2) the Brazilian value represents an export price, which in the
past the Department has considered less preferable to a domestic price
because the exported ore may benefit from subsidies, (3) the value is a
single price observation rather than an average value over a period of
time, and (4) the price does not reflect a mine-mouth ore price and is
therefore not representative of the PRC producers' ore costs.
The respondents argue that the Brazilian ore price is an unsuitable
surrogate value because it exceeds the value of high-grade Indian
peroxide ore listed in the IMY which the Department's expert argued
would itself overstate the value of the PRC ore. Moreover, the
manganese-to-iron ratio of the Brazilian ore price is almost double the
minimum argued by the petitioners. The petitioners counter that the
respondents are wrong, as a point of fact, and that the record clearly
indicates that both the Brazilian ore value used by the Department in
its preliminary results and the Sandur ore price recommended by the
petitioners are significantly lower on an MTU basis (i.e., per percent
of contained manganese) than the high grade Indian peroxide ore.
Department's Position: The Department disagrees with both the
petitioners and the respondents. In considering the totality of
evidence on record and in weighing the relative merits of all the
surrogate options, the Department maintains that the Brazilian ore best
reflects the physical and chemical characteristics of the PRC ore and,
thus, best reflects the value of the PRC ore.
With regard to the petitioners' first specific objection to the
Brazilian ore as enumerated above, while it is true the Department's
preference is to use surrogate values from a country it has deemed to
be at a level of economic development comparable to that of the non-
market economy involved, the Act states that the Department must only
do so ``to the extent possible.'' See section 773(c)(4) of the Act.
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act further states that, ``the valuation of
the factors of production shall be based on the best available
information regarding values of such factors in a market economy
country or countries considered appropriate by the administering
authority.'' In the past, in proceedings where the facts on record
indicate that the Department's usual practice would not permit the
accurate valuation of a factor input, the Department has chosen
surrogates from countries not included among the Department's list of
potential surrogate countries. See Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cased Pencils from the People's
Republic of China, 59 FR 55625 (November 8, 1994) (``Pencils'').
After careful consideration of the information submitted in this
review by both the petitioners and the respondents, as well as
information resulting from the Department's own research, we have
determined that none of the proposed Indian ore prices represents the
best surrogate for the PRC ore available in this review. In making this
decision we have taken into account inter alia the fact that there is
no consensus among the petitioners and the respondents regarding the
suitability of any of the Indian ore surrogate choices. Each party has
submitted a considerable amount of evidence and expert opinion
detailing why every one of the other party's proposed Indian surrogate
is inappropriate on grounds of either price or chemical comparability.
The proposed Brazilian ore surrogate, however, falls within the
criteria for comparability advocated by both sides. The manganese
content of the Brazilian ore is even closer to that used by the PRC
producers than the Indian surrogate advocated by the respondents, while
the manganese-to-iron ratio is above the minimum necessary, as the
petitioners argue it should be, for the ore to be useable in manganese
metal manufacture. Moreover, with regard to a certain unique chemical
feature, the Brazilian ore is of the same type as the PRC ore, whereas
none of the potential Indian surrogates is of this type. Information on
the record indicates that certain unique aspects of the respondents'
manufacturing process and, consequently, the respondents' costs of
production are contingent on the use of ore with this particular
chemical feature.
Regarding the petitioners' second objection, it is correct that the
Department has generally not chosen to use for a surrogate value an
export price from a country which maintains non-specific export
subsidies, or subsidies specific to the factor in question. We note
however, that the Department has the discretion to use such a factor
where appropriate.
The petitioners have cited the 1997 National Trade Estimate on
Foreign Trade Barriers (USTR), which indicates that the government of
Brazil offers a variety of tax and tariff incentives to encourage
production of exports. The one export subsidy program identified
explicitly in that report is Brazil's export credit program known as
PROEX.
The Department first notes that the Brazilian price quote was for
exports of manganese ore to the United States. In the course of its
investigations into subsidies in other cases of Brazilian exports to
the United States, the Department has identified certain export
subsidies schemes in Brazil. However, in all the cases reviewed these
programs have been deemed by the Department either to have been not in
use at the time, terminated altogether, or of such a small magnitude as
to confer only a de minimis or minimal benefit. See, e.g., Final
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Castor
Oil Products from Brazil, 60 FR 20478 (April 26, 1995); Cotton Yarn
from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review 59 FR 68 (January 3, 1994); Certain Agricultural Tillage Tools
from Brazil; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, 60 FR 48692 (September 20, 1995); Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot Rolled Lead and Bismuth
Carbon Steel Products from Brazil, 58 FR 6213 (January 27, 1993).
PROEX, in particular, is among the programs the Department determined
were not in use. In the two Brazilian countervailing cases involving
iron ore and iron ore pellets, the Department determined that iron ore,
a mineral extraction industry like manganese ore, was not eligible to
participate in the PROEX (or its predecessor FINEX) program, which is
available only to producers of ``manufactured'' products. See Pig Iron
from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, 58 FR 6246 (January 27, 1993) and Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination; Iron Ore Pellets from Brazil, 51 FR
21961, 21964 (June 17, 1986). For these reasons, the Department has
determined that the merits of using the Brazilian ore price outweigh
concerns over Brazilian export subsidies and, consequently, that an
exception to the Department's more general practice of not using export
prices as surrogate values is appropriate in this case.
[[Page 12445]]
Addressing the petitioners' point that the Brazilian price is for
an individual transaction, information on the record indicates that
prices for globally-traded manganese ore are usually set on an annual
contract basis. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the September
1993 Brazilian price quote represents a price which was in effect at
least over several months rather than a stand-alone spot price.
Finally, in their fourth objection to the Brazilian ore, the
petitioners imply that there is significant variation in the price of a
given ore, on an MTU, ex-mine basis, arising from differences in the
distance over which the ore must be transported. However, information
on the record provided by the Department's expert indicates that prices
for relatively high-quality ore--which, the petitioners have argued,
any ore useable in manganese metal production (including the Brazilian
ore series) must be--are largely uniform worldwide. There is no
significant bifurcation of the market for higher-grade ores.
Consequently, the Brazilian export price, adjusted for inland
transportation, is a reasonable surrogate value for the PRC ore at the
mine-mouth.
Turning to the respondents' arguments, the Department disagrees
with the respondents' assertion that the Brazilian ore price is higher
than the prices of the peroxide ores listed in the IMY. Rather, on an
ex-mine, $/MTU basis the Brazilian value is less than two-thirds that
of the lowest-cost Indian peroxide ore (i.e., 82-84% MnO2). See Exhibit
B of Memorandum to the File, From the Team, Calculations for the
Preliminary Determination of the First Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of
China (October 31, 1997). Moreover, the respondents have argued that
manganese content is the largest determinant of ore prices and,
therefore, surrogate suitability. The Department notes that the
manganese content of the Brazilian ore is more comparable to that used
by the PRC producers than the respondents' proposed ore surrogate from
Producer X.
For all these reasons, the Department has decided that none of the
possible Indian ore surrogates would allow for the accurate valuation
of the PRC ore. Consequently, we are continuing to use the Brazilian
ore price for the purposes of the Final Results.
Comment 4: The petitioners argue that the Department's adjustment
to the 1993 Brazilian ore price to make it contemporaneous with the POR
was incorrect. According to the petitioners, the Brazilian ore is more
properly treated as a domestically traded ore influenced by local
conditions. The correct adjustment methodology, the petitioners
therefore contend, would be to adjust the 1993 Brazilian price
(restated in Reals/MTU) by the change in the Brazilian wholesale price
index between September 1993 and the POR, and then convert this
adjusted price into US dollars using the POR exchange rate.
Department's Position: The Department disagrees with the
petitioners' proposed method of adjustment. The petitioners have argued
that only relatively higher-quality ore can be used in manganese metal
manufacture, and they have also noted that the Brazilian ore appears to
be suitable for use in the production of manganese metal. We can
reasonably conclude, therefore, that the Brazilian ore is a higher-
quality ore. Moreover, exports of such ore from Brazil constitute part
of an international market for which there are well-established, quoted
prices that are denominated in US dollars. In such circumstances, a
price index for this market would be the most appropriate basis for
making an intertemporal adjustment to the Brazilian export price.
However, to the Department's knowledge no such index exists. As a proxy
for such an index, therefore, we have used the annual contract prices
for the years 1993-1995 charged by one of the largest producers in the
international manganese ore market. According to the Department's
expert, this is a reasonable adjustment methodology because inter alia
the higher-grade manganese ores traded on world markets are generally
priced within a narrow band.
Comment 5: The petitioners argue that the Sandur ore, with 46-48%
contained manganese, is the best surrogate value for Factor B because
the chemical composition of the Sandur ore is comparable to Factor B.
Moreover, the Sandur ore, the petitioners claim, represents a domestic
Indian transaction price. If, the petitioners argue, the Department
persists in using the 82-84% MnO2 peroxide ore as listed in
the IMY to value Factor B, the price should be time-adjusted using the
Indian wholesale price index to make it contemporaneous to the POR.
The respondents also argue that the 82-84% MnO2 peroxide
ore used by the Department in its preliminary results was an unsuitable
surrogate for Factor B because of a significant difference in the
manganese contents between the two. For reasons similar to those cited
in the Department's response to Comment 1 above, the Department's
chosen surrogate significantly overstates the cost of the ore actually
used by the PRC producers. Thus, the respondents contend that the
Department should use the ore price of ``Producer X'' (discussed in
Comment 2 above) or, in lieu of that, the Sandur ore proposed by the
petitioners.
Department's Position: The Department has chosen the ore price
quote from Producer X because its manganese content coincides with the
reported range of Factor B, the price is contemporaneous with the POR,
and it is clearly a domestic price for India, the surrogate country
chosen for this review. Although the Sandur ore also coincides with the
reported range of manganese content for Factor B, the price is not
contemporaneous with the POR. Moreover, as discussed in the
Department's position in Comment 1 above, the record is not explicit as
to whether the Sandur value is a domestic market or an export price for
India.
Finally, with regard to the petitioners' argument about the time-
adjustment methodology, the Department is now using the ore price from
Producer X to value Factor B. Because this price is contemporaneous
with the POR, no time-adjustment is necessary.
(b) Electricity Valuation
Comment 6: The petitioners argue that the most suitable surrogate
value for electricity is an average rate in effect in 1996 across those
Indian states which contain the bulk of the Indian manganese ferroalloy
production. The rate used by the Department in the Preliminary Results
understates the true cost, the petitioners contend, because it
represents an average rate applicable to all Indian states, including
those states in which the electricity sector is still state-owned and
therefore rate increases are tightly controlled, as well as those
states in which no ferroalloy production is located. Moreover, although
the record indicates that a few Indian ferroalloy producers in these
states have captive electricity generation and are therefore not
subject to the grid rate for that energy which is self-generated, these
producers represent only a small percentage of the total number of
Indian producers. The petitioners further argue that the strategy of
the manganese industry in China is to locate manganese metal production
facilities close to the manganese mine and, therefore, if India did
have manganese metal producers they, like the Indian ferroalloy
producers, would also likely be located in those states with large
manganese ore deposits.
The respondents counter that there is no evidence on the record to
support the petitioners' assertion that there is a
[[Page 12446]]
general strategy in China to locate the manganese metal plants at the
mine-mouth, noting that three or four manganese metal producers
investigated by the Department were not located at the mine mouth.
Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioners. There is
insufficient evidence on the record from which to conclude that the
developments affecting the electricity prices of Indian ferromanganese
necessarily reflect conditions in which the PRC manganese metal
producers likewise must operate. For example, the generally higher
electricity rates in those Indian states which contain the bulk of
ferromanganese producers are not necessarily a result of the presence
of a ferromanganese industry in those states. To the contrary, the
record suggests the rate differences among states are usually due to
more general, state-specific circumstances such as uneven progress in
the privatization of power generation and distribution, as well as
local power shortages. See Metal Bulletin, July 4, 1996. In lieu of
concrete evidence that the higher state-specific rates are directly a
result of the presence of manufacturers of identical or comparable
merchandise, Departmental practice in past cases has been to take a
simple average of electricity rates for the surrogate country as a
whole. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value; Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, 61 FR
14057, 14062 (March 29, 1996).
Moreover, information on the record provided by the petitioners in
fact indicates that some manganese ferroalloy producers in those Indian
states with some of the highest electricity rates will likely be forced
to close precisely because of their high energy costs. Other producers
in these states, the information suggests, will either be forced to
move production to other states with lower rates or build self-
generating electricity capacity. See Metal Bulletin, June 27, 1996.
The petitioners also maintain that the record only identifies four
ferroalloy producers in these states who have captive electrical
generation capacity out of a total of roughly 70 Indian ferroalloy
producers. In response, the Department notes that according to
information in the 1993 Ferroalloy Directory & Databook, the four
producers named together represent a disproportionately large
percentage of overall Indian ferroalloy production.
Furthermore, we agree with the respondents' contention that there
is insufficient information on the record to conclude that the general
strategy of the PRC manganese metal industry is to locate its plants at
the mine mouth. To the contrary, information on the record states that
imports of manganese ore into China grew to more than 1.5 million tons
annually during the POR, making China one of the world's largest
importers of manganese ore. Among the reasons cited for an increasing
preference among the PRC for imported manganese ore is that the high
grade imported ore is more economical than domestically-mined low-grade
ore. In the absence of explicit factual information supporting the
petitioners' contention of a general PRC strategy, one would expect
that the general strategy would be to locate plants close to ports of
importation in order to minimize the costs of transportation which, as
the petitioners' have argued, can be considerable.
(c) Labor Valuation
Comment 7: In its preliminary results, the Department used a 1991
labor cost for India as reported in the 1996 Yearbook of Labor
Statistics (``YLS''). The respondents argue that this is an
inappropriate surrogate because it does not differentiate between
skilled and unskilled workers. This is a crucial distinction, the
respondents contend, because a very high percentage of lower cost,
unskilled labor is used by the respondents. If the unskilled to skilled
ratio is lower in India than in China, the average Indian labor cost
would overstate the respondents' actual costs of labor. The respondents
recommend using instead the labor cost information contained in
Investing, Licensing & Trading Conditions Abroad: India 1996 (``IL&T'')
as published by the Economist Intelligence Unit or, in lieu of the IL&T
data, using the cost data in Foreign Labor Trends. Both of these
sources, the respondents note, report a separate value for skilled and
unskilled workers, and the information in both more closely coincides
with the POR. Furthermore, the Department has used information from
Foreign Labor Trends to value labor costs in other cases.
The petitioners first argue that the respondents' reported
percentage of unskilled to overall workers is unrealistically high.
Moreover, the petitioners continue, the data in the Foreign Labor
Trends represents minimum wages for factory workers in Delhi only, an
area in which no producers of comparable material are located. The
petitioners further contend the IL&T is also not a suitable surrogate
because its rates are only ``indicative'' and therefore may be
distorted by significant variation in wages by state and industry.
Rather, the petitioners argue, the YLS information provides the best
surrogate value because it is specific to the Indian basic metals
industry, and it was used in the underlying investigation.
Department's Position: We disagree with the respondents' contention
that either the IL&T or the Foreign Labor Trends data represent
surrogate labor values preferable to the YLS. The data in Foreign Labor
Trends represent only minimum wage rates for workers in Delhi
factories. Given the information on record indicating that wages in
India vary considerably by industry, company size and region, there is
no basis on which to conclude that minimum factory wages in Delhi
factories reflect average wage rates across the Indian economy. The
YLS, on the other hand, provides labor rates for the basic metals
industry for India as a whole. The Department notes that in the final
determination of the furfuryl alcohol investigation cited by the
respondents, the Department changed its methodology and abandoned use
of the Foreign Labor Trends data on the grounds that that data were
found to be ``not appropriate for valuing labor factors.'' See Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl
Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8,
1995).
With regard to the IL&T data, in corresponding with the Economist
Intelligence Unit regarding the methodology used to compile labor
information, the Department learned that the reported average monthly
wages are based solely on wages stipulated by Indian law rather than on
any survey of average wages actually paid. Moreover, it appears from
the text in the IL&T data that the wage rates do not include additional
mandatory and voluntary benefits which normally add an additional 40-
50% to the base pay. See IL&T at 52 and 53. The Department, in choosing
a surrogate labor value, seeks to reflect the average fully-loaded cost
(i.e., including all costs and benefits in addition to basic wage) of
employing labor on as industry-specific a basis as possible. See, e.g.,
Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of
China; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 66255,
66259 (December 17, 1996) and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value; Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of
China, 61 FR 14057, 14061 (March 29, 1996).
Finally, it has been a longstanding practice of the Department to
apply the single average labor rate reported for India in the YLS to
all reported skill levels. See e.g., Notice of Final
[[Page 12447]]
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Persulfates from the
People's Republic of China, 62 FR 27222, 27229 (May 19, 1997); Heavy
Forged Hand Tools from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 11814, 11815 (March 13,
1997); Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic
of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62
FR 61794, 61780 (November 19, 1997).
(d) Chemical Valuation
Comment 8: The petitioners argue that the Department's use in the
preliminary results of a domestic Indian price for sodium sulphide as a
surrogate for a certain process chemical (``Factor C'') is incorrect.
Instead, the petitioners contend, a U.S. price quote on record for the
actual chemical is a preferable surrogate to sodium sulphide which, the
petitioners further allege, is not even a true substitute for Factor C.
The respondents counter by pointing to expert testimony on the record
stating that sodium sulphide is a reasonable substitute for Factor C in
the manganese metal production process. The respondents further argue
that using the petitioners' U.S. price for a surrogate value for Factor
C would be contrary to the Act because the United States is not at a
level of economic development comparable to that of China.
Department's Position: We agree with the respondents in part. There
is sufficient factual information on the record to conclude that sodium
sulphide is comparable to Factor C. Generally, the Department's
practice is to use values taken from the chosen surrogate country
wherever possible. In this review, therefore, the Department has chosen
the domestic Indian market price available for sodium sulphide over the
surrogate value from the US market.
Comment 9: The petitioners contend that the Department erroneously
classified four process chemicals (i.e., Factor D, Factor E, Factor F,
and Factor G) as part of factory overhead rather than as direct
material costs. The petitioners provide an excerpt from Plant Design
and Economics for Chemical Engineers (1991) (``Plant Design'') which
they claim demonstrates that under ordinary cost accounting principles
these process chemicals are treated as direct factors of production.
Moreover, the petitioners contend, any distinction drawn in the use of
these chemicals and other chemicals which have been treated as direct
material inputs in this review is arbitrary. They note, for instance,
that certain chemicals which were treated as direct material inputs in
the preliminary results are not entirely consumed in the manufacturing
process but, rather, are recycled back through the production circuit.
The respondents counter that it has been the Department's
established policy to treat indirect materials as part of factory
overhead. Indirect materials, according to the respondents, have been
defined as materials which are not physically incorporated into the
final product. The respondents note that during the Department's
verification of the PRC production facility, these chemicals were
observed to be used for cleaning and pacification purposes only.
Therefore, the respondents argue, these chemicals are indirect costs
subsumed within the general overhead cost category.
Department's Position: We agree with the respondents. In the Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Manganese Metal from
the PRC, 60 FR 56045, 56051 (November 6, 1995), the petitioners also
relied on Plant Design to support their claim that the same process
chemicals should be treated as direct factors of production. However,
in that segment the Department determined that, because the process
chemicals were used either after the metal had been produced or for
cleaning purposes unrelated to the actual production process, the
chemicals in question are properly classified as part of factory
overhead. This distinction is consistent with the methodology used by
the Department in prior cases. See e.g., Heavy Forged Hand Tools from
the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 49251, 49254 (September 22,
1995). Furthermore, in the Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value; Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the
People's Republic of China, 62 FR 31972, 31977 (June 11, 1997), the
Department determined that the treatment of indirect materials as
overhead is consistent with the Compendium of Statements and Standards:
Accounting (India). Therefore, we have continued to classify the
process chemicals in question as part of factory overhead.
(e) SG&A/Profit Valuation
Comment 10: The petitioners argue that the Department's use in its
preliminary results of data reported in the Reserve Bank of India
Bulletin (``RBI Bulletin'') to value overhead, SG&A, and profit is
incorrect. The reported average for the RBI Bulletin industrial
grouping ``Processing and Manufacture--metals, chemicals and products
thereof,'' the petitioners contend, understates the actual profit and
SG&A expenses incurred in manganese metal manufacture because the
composite includes several low-value-added (fabrication) industries
which generally experience low SG&A expenses and profits compared with
high-value-added (processing) industries such as manganese metal. The
petitioners argue that the understated nature of the RBI Bulletin data
is clearly illustrated by comparing the RBI Bulletin profit with the
significantly higher certificate of deposit, commercial paper and
Treasury Bill yields in effect in India during the same period. No new
private investors would invest in the Indian manganese metal or
ferroalloy industry, the petitioners contend, if they expected a rate
of return on their investment comparable to the RBI Bulletin profit
level, especially given the much higher rates of return in the
relatively less risky alternative investments noted above. The
petitioners argue that a more suitable surrogate for SG&A and profit
would be actual data taken from the financial statements of two Indian
companies (i.e., Hindalco and TISCO), both operating in high-value-
added industries. In the case of profits, the petitioners argue that if
the Department chooses not to use the company-specific data it should,
at a minimum, use a figure which reflects a low risk alternative
investment strategy such as an Indian CD, commercial paper, or Treasury
Bill rate.
The respondents counter that neither Hindalco or TISCO, the two
Indian companies for which the petitioners have provided financial
statements, is dedicated solely to the production of manganese metal or
a comparable product and, therefore, their specific financial
performance does not necessarily reflect that of the manganese
industry. On the other hand, because India is a large producer of
comparable merchandise, it is reasonable to assume that the financial
performance of the domestic manganese industry is reflected in the RBI
Bulletin average data. Therefore, the RBI Bulletin data provides the
best surrogate value for SG&A and profit.
Department's Position: The Department agrees with the respondents
that the RBI Bulletin data represent the best available surrogate value
for SG&A and profit in this review. While the Department would
generally prefer to base SG&A and profit on financial information
specific to the production of identical or comparable merchandise in
India, this information is not available in this administrative review.
The petitioners argue that the RBI Bulletin should not be used
because it contains a broad variety of industries.
[[Page 12448]]
However, according to its 1995-96 Annual Report, TISCO also produces a
broad variety of products including, inter alia, cement, welded steel
tubes, cold rolled strips, ammonium sulphate, bearing rings, and
metallurgical machinery in addition to a small amount of comparable
merchandise (i.e., ferromanganese). The aggregate TISCO data therefore
do not resolve the problems raised by the petitioners.
With respect to Hindalco, this company produces aluminum--a product
which has not been found to be comparable to manganese metal by either
party or the Department. See e.g., the petitioners' submission dated
March 17, 1995 at page 4. Additionally, Hindalco's 1996-97 Annual
Report at pages 14 and 37 seems to indicate that the company also
produces a number of other products wholly unrelated to the production
of manganese metal, including fabricated products (e.g., rolled and
extruded products). Moreover, the Hindalco data include energy which
cannot be separated from factory overhead.
The Department likewise disagrees with the petitioners' contention
that at the very least profit should reflect the return on a low risk
investment strategy in India. Whether or not the RBI Bulletin rate
would have been sufficient to induce new investment into the industry,
what is relevant in this case to the valuation of the PRC profit rate
is the actual financial experience of existing Indian ferromanganese
producers during the POR. Although the RBI Bulletin data are not
specific to producers of comparable merchandise, they do reflect the
actual experience of producers of comparable merchandise and a
reasonably close group of like industries. Thus, this information is
the best surrogate available.
Comment 11: The respondents argue that ``provident fund'' and
``employee's welfare expense'' should not be included among the
overhead expenses as taken from the RBI Bulletin. These expenses, the
respondents argue, are labor related and therefore already included in
the direct labor cost component of the cost of manufacture (``COM'').
The respondents note that in certain recent proceedings the Department
included such expenses in the direct labor component rather than in
overhead. The petitioners argue that in the underlying investigation,
the Department determined that the provident fund should be included in
factory overhead based on the nature of how the expense was incurred.
There is no information on the record of this review which supports a
different determination from that in the investigation and, therefore,
the Department should continue using the methodology used in the
preliminary results.
Department's Position: We agree with the respondents. The
Department has reconsidered the methodology used in its final
determination of the LTFV investigation for classifying the expense
items ``provident fund'' and ``employee welfare expense.'' The
Department considers the YLS data to be fully loaded with respect to
all labor expenses, incorporating such costs as contributions to the
provident fund and employee welfare expenses. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Polyvinyl Alcohol from
the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 14057, 140614 (March 29, 1996).
Therefore, in order to be consistent with Department practice in other
cases (e.g., Sulfanilic Acid from the People's Republic of China; Final
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 61 FR 53702, 53710 (October 15, 1996)), we have removed these
two expense items from the factory overhead and reclassified them as
part of the direct labor inputs component of the COM.
(f) Packing Material Valuation
Comment 12: The respondents and the petitioners both contend that
the Department erred in its conversion from liters to cubic centimeters
in calculating the per unit cost of Factor L in the preliminary
results.
Department's Position: We agree with both the petitioners and the
respondents that an error was made in the conversion from liters to
cubic centimeters in calculating the cost of Factor L. We have made the
appropriate changes to the packing calculations for these Final
Results.
(2) Valuation of By-Product Credit
Comment 13: The petitioners argue that the by-product generated
during the respondents' manufacturing process is a low-quality and,
therefore, low-value product. Electrolytic manganese dioxide (``EMD''),
which the respondents argue is a product comparable to the by-product,
is a very high-value product. The petitioners contend that because
there are such fundamental differences in the chemical composition of
EMD and the by-product, EMD would not be a suitable surrogate for the
by-product.
The respondents counter that the by-product resulting from
manganese metal manufacture has value, as illustrated by the fact that
the PRC producers sell it to nearby unaffiliated industrial operations.
It cannot be valued as an ore, the respondents continue, because it is
a product resulting from the electrolysis of an ore. Thus, the
respondents conclude, a more suitable surrogate would be the value of
EMD. The Department, the respondents argue, acknowledged the intrinsic
value of this by-product in the original investigation when it used for
a surrogate the Indian import value of ``Manganese Dioxide, excluding
ores.''
Department's Position: The Department disagrees with the
respondents' argument for the use of EMD as a surrogate value. First,
the respondents are incorrect in stating that the Department used for a
by-product surrogate in the LTFV investigation an Indian import value
for manganese dioxide excluding ores. In the LTFV Final Determination,
the Department used an 82-84%MnO2 peroxide ore, as listed in the 1993
Indian Minerals Yearbook, to value the respondents' by-product credit.
EMD is a very high-valued product used mainly in the production of dry-
cell batteries. See Attachment III to Memorandum to Richard W.
Moreland, From the Manganese Metal Team, October 24, 1997. The
respondents have not sufficiently demonstrated that the PRC by-product
is of the same rigorous specifications as EMD.
The respondents have demonstrated, however, that their by-product
does have some resale value. See Memorandum For: The File, From: Daniel
Lessard, Subject: Verification of XTMM, October 12, 1997. In lieu of
any information on the Indian value of the actual by-product in
question, the Department is maintaining the methodology used in the
LTFV Final Determination of using for a surrogate the price of high-
valued Indian manganese dioxide ore.
3. Combined Rates
Comment 14: The petitioners argue, citing the Department's new
regulations adopted in May 1997, that combination duty deposit rates
should be established separately for XTMM/HIED and XTMM/CMIECHN/
CNIECHN. The current company-specific rates are far lower than the
China-wide rate, the petitioners argue, leading to the potential for
PRC producers not reviewed in this proceeding to export through one of
the companies with the lower company-specific rate.
The respondents counter that the new regulations do not change the
Department's past policy regarding the assignment of rates in non-
market economy cases. Moreover, the current review is not subject to
the Department's new regulations.
[[Page 12449]]
Therefore combination rates should not be established.
Department's Position: We agree with the respondents. It has been
the Department's practice in cases involving non-market economies to
assign rates to exporters rather than producers because it is the
exporter who actually determines the price at which the subject
merchandise is sold in the United States. See Persulfates from the
People's Republic of China, 62 FR 27222, 27227 (May 19, 1997).
Moreover, in the preamble to the final regulations (see, Antidumping
Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27305 (May 19, 1997)), the
Department states that it intends to continue calculating antidumping
rates for NME export trading companies, and not the manufacturers
supplying the trading companies. Therefore, combination rates in this
case are not appropriate.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our analysis of the comments we received, we have
made changes to those margins presented in our preliminary results. We
determine the following weighted-average margins existed for the period
June 1, 1995 through January 31, 1997:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIED........................................................ 2.80
CMIECHN/CNIECHN............................................. 1.56
CEIEC *..................................................... 11.77
Minmetals *................................................. 5.88
PRC-wide.................................................... 143.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CEIEC and Minmetals both reported that they had no sales to the United
States during the POR. The specific rate for each of these companies
will therefore remain unchanged from that determined in the Final
Determination of LTFV investigation.
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between export price (``EP'') and normal value (``NV'') may
vary from the percentages stated above. We have calculated exporter/
importer-specific duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total
amount of 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 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.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of this notice of 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
companies named above that have separate rates and were reviewed (i.e.,
China Hunan International Economic Development Corporation (HIED) and
China Metallurgical Import & Export Hunan Corporation/Hunan Nonferrous
Metals Import & Export Associated Corporation (CMIECHN/CNIECHN)), the
cash deposit rates will be the rates listed above specifically for
those firms; (2) for companies which established their eligibility for
a separate rate in the LTFV investigation but were found not to have
exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POR (i.e.,
China National Electronics Import & Export Hunan Company (``CEIEC'')
and Minmetals Precious & Rare Minerals Import & Export Co.
(``Minmetals'')), the cash deposit rates continue to be the currently
applicable rates of 11.77% and 5.88%, respectively; (3) for all other
PRC exporters, all of which were found not to be entitled to a separate
rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 143.32%; and (4) for
non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter.
These deposit requirements will remain in effect until publication of
the Final Results of the next administrative review.
This notice serves as a 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 has occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (``APOs'') of their responsibility
concerning disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of the
return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
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: March 9, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-6551 Filed 3-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P