[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1599-1602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-552]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-821-803]
Titanium Sponge From the Russian Federation: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 8, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the
[[Page 1600]]
Department'') published the preliminary results of its administrative
review of the antidumping finding on titanium sponge from the Russian
Federation (``Russia''). The review covers the period August 1, 1996,
through July 31, 1997.
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our
preliminary results. We received comments from Titanium Metals
Corporation (``the petitioner'') and rebuttal comments from AVISMA
Magnesium-Titanium Works (``AVISMA'') and Interlink Metals & Chemicals
S.A. and Interlink Metals, Inc. (collectively ``Interlink''). We did
not receive any comments from TMC Trading International, Ltd., the
other respondent in this review. After considering these comments, we
have not changed the final results from those presented in the
preliminary results of review.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 11, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Manning or Wendy Frankel, Office
of AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 4, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3936
and (202) 482-5849, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The 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. In addition, unless
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's
regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351
(1998).
Background
On September 8, 1998, the Department published in the Federal
Register (63 FR 47474) the preliminary results of its administrative
review of the antidumping finding on titanium sponge from Russia. The
Department has now completed the review in accordance with section 751
of the Act.
Scope of the Review
The product covered by this administrative review is titanium
sponge from Russia. Titanium sponge is chiefly used for aerospace
vehicles, specifically, in construction of compressor blades and
wheels, stator blades, rotors, and other parts in aircraft gas turbine
engines. Imports of titanium sponge are currently classifiable under
the harmonized tariff schedule (``HTS'') subheading 8108.10.50.10. The
HTS subheading is provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes.
Our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Interested Party Comments
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our
preliminary results. We received comments from the petitioner on
October 8, 1998, and rebuttal comments from AVISMA and Interlink on
October 13, 1998. We did not receive comments from any other party.
Comment 1: The petitioner argues that the Department erred when it
valued electricity with the electricity rate for industrial users from
the Guayana region of Venezuela, as reported by the Venezuelan Chamber
of Electric Industry, rather than with an industrial user rate for all
of Venezuela. According to the petitioner, selecting this regional rate
broke with the Department's past practice of valuing electricity with a
country-wide rate. Specifically, the petitioner notes that the
Department used a Brazilian-wide rate in the preliminary results for
the 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 administrative reviews. See the
petitioner's July 16, 1998, submission at 3, citing to Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Titanium Sponge from
the Russian Federation, 61 FR 39437, (July 29, 1996); and Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Titanium Sponge from
the Russian Federation, 62 FR 25920 (May 12, 1997).
The petitioner also claims that there is no provision in the
applicable statute that allows, or even mentions, subdividing a
selected surrogate country for valuation purposes. In fact, the
petitioner argues, the statute mandates the use of country-wide rates
because it directs the Department to utilize a ``country'' to value the
factors of production. Id. at 3. The petitioner contends that it is the
Department's established practice to determine the economic
comparability of a potential surrogate market economy country by
examining the country-wide characteristics, such as the level of per
capita Gross National Product, national distribution of labor and
national growth rates. Id. at 3, emphasis in original. For this reason,
the petitioner argues that the Department should be consistent and use
country-wide prices for valuing the factors of production. The
petitioner notes that both itself and Interlink submitted general-
industry electricity rates for all of Venezuela and recommends that the
Department, for the final results of review, use either of these two
country-wide rates.
According to Interlink and AVISMA (collectively ``the
respondents''), the Department was correct to value electricity with
the industrial user rate from the Guayana region of Venezuela. The
respondents state that this region contains the country's largest
industrial companies, including Venezuela's three aluminum producers.
Furthermore, the respondents argue that EDELCA, the company that
provides electricity to this region, is Venezuela's largest utility
company and accounts for approximately 70 percent of Venezuela's total
electricity production. In addition, the 177 industrial users EDELCA
serviced in 1997 accounted for 25 percent of Venezuela's electricity
consumption. See respondent's submission dated March 3, 1998 at 2.
The respondents also contend that the Department is not required by
statute or practice to use country-wide rates for valuing factors of
production in nonmarket economy cases. The respondents argue that the
Department addressed this issue in the 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, 1998), where the
Department stated ``Since there is not sufficient information on the
record to weigh the appropriateness of using one Indian state's
electricity rates over those in another, we have based the surrogate
value on the simple average of all Indian state rates found in the 1995
CMIE source.'' According to the respondents, the Department's decision
to use a country-wide rate from India was based not on a requirement
that it use a country-wide rate, but rather on a recognition that there
was insufficient information on the record on which to base a decision
to use a rate specific to a particular Indian state. See respondent's
July 21, 1998 submission at 2. Moreover, the respondents claim that the
Department's decision explicitly acknowledges that it would have used a
rate specific to a particular state or region within the surrogate
country if the information on the record suggested that this rate was a
better indicator of the rate that AVISMA would likely pay if located in
the surrogate country. Id. at 2. Therefore, argue the respondents,
since the statute and past practices do not prohibit the Department
from using a regional rate, and the record evidence indicates that the
industrial-user electricity rate from the Guayana region is the most
representative of the prices that AVISMA would pay if located in
[[Page 1601]]
Venezuela, the Department should continue to use this rate for the
purposes of the final results of this review.
Department Position: We agree with the respondents. Section
773(c)(4) of the Act instructs the Department to select a surrogate
market economy country that is (1) at a comparable level of economic
development to that of the nonmarket economy country and (2) produces
merchandise that is comparable to the subject merchandise. The
Department's regulations, at section 351.408(b), provide further
guidance in selecting the appropriate surrogate country by stating that
the Secretary will place primary emphasis on per capita GDP as the
measure of economic comparability. As the petitioner notes, it is also
the Department's practice to examine additional criteria, such as
national growth rates and the national distribution of labor, when
selecting the appropriate surrogate country. However, all of the above
criteria and practices are used to select the surrogate country and are
not relevant in selecting factor of production values within the
surrogate country once selected. Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act states
that the valuation of the factors of production shall be based on the
best available information regarding the values of such factors in a
market economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the
administering authority.
In our effort to value the factors of production in an accurate
manner, the Department uses both regional and country-wide market
economy values where the record evidence demonstrates that such values
provide the best available information by which to value the nonmarket
economy producer's factors of production. In the instant case, the
evidence on the record demonstrates that the Guayana region contains a
high concentration of Venezuela's largest industrial users and accounts
for 70 percent of Venezuela's total electricity production. Venezuela's
three producers of aluminum, a product comparable to titanium, are
located in Guayana and receive the industrial rate for this region.
Furthermore, 177 industrial users in this region accounted for 25
percent of Venezuela's total electricity consumption in 1997. Although
the respondent's data does not explicitly list what percent these 177
industrial users represent of all industrial consumption, we can infer
from the fact that they account for 25 percent of all total electrical
consumption (which includes residential, commercial, and industrial)
that it must be a very high percentage. See respondent's submission
dated March 3, 1998 at 2 and 3. For these reasons, we find that the
rate for industrial users in the Guayana region of Venezuela is the
most representative of the electricity prices AVISMA would pay if it
were located in Venezuela.
Comment 2: The petitioner contends that Interlink's request for
revocation did not properly comply with 19 CFR 351.222(e). Therefore,
the petitioner concludes that the Department could not have legally
revoked the order as per Interlink's request. According to the
petitioner, Interlink's September 21, 1998, submission withdrawing its
request for revocation prevented the Department from running afoul of
its own regulations.
Interlink argues that its request for revocation complied with
Department regulations, and the Department's September 8, 1998,
preliminary notice of intent to revoke the finding in response to
Interlink's request confirmed the correctness of Interlink's request.
Moreover, Interlink claims that its withdrawal of request for
revocation had nothing to do with the petitioner's argument that this
withdrawal prevented the Department from running afoul of its
regulations.
Department Position: On September 8, 1998, the Department
preliminarily determined to revoke the finding on titanium sponge from
Russia as it applies to Interlink. Due to Interlink's September 21,
1998 withdrawal of its request for revocation, we do not need to
consider any arguments concerning Interlink's request for revocation.
Correction of Clerical Errors
The Department found two clerical errors in our August 31, 1998
analysis memorandum, which describes the methodology we used in
calculating normal value and U.S. price in this administrative review.
On page 3 of this memorandum, we discussed our calculation of selling,
general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses and profit.
Specifically, we defined SG&A expenses to equal the surrogate SG&A
ratio multiplied by the cost of manufacture. Similarly, we defined
profit to equal the surrogate profit ratio multiplied by the sum of the
cost of manufacture and SG&A expenses. In both definitions, the
Department mistakenly used the term ``cost of manufacture'' when we
should have used the term ``adjusted cost of manufacture.'' Because our
actual calculations correctly used adjusted cost of manufacture, this
clerical error had no effect on our normal value calculation.
Final Results of Review
In the preliminary results, the Department stated that we would
confirm the information provided by AVISMA, Interlink, and TMC
regarding the existence of sales of subject merchandise to the United
States that were entered under temporary importation bond (``TIB'').
See preliminary results at 47476. We contacted the Customs Service and
confirmed that certain entries of subject merchandise manufactured by
AVISMA, Interlink, and TMC entered the United States under TIB during
the period of review. See Memorandum to the File, ``Customs Service
Confirmation of Temporary Importation Bond Entries'', dated December
30, 1998.
For the reasons set out in the preliminary determination, and in
the discussion of comments above, we determine that the following
dumping margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter Time period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interlink Metals & Chemicals, 8/1/96-7/31/97........... 00.0
S.A..
TMC Trading International, 8/1/96-7/31/97........... 00.0
Ltd..
AVISMA Magnesium-Titanium 8/1/96-7/31/97........... 00.0
Works.
Russia-wide rate............. 8/1/96-7/31/97........... 83.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Since there were no sales with dumping margins, we will instruct
Customs not to assess dumping duties on any shipments of subject
merchandise exported by the above-referenced entities that entered the
United States during the POR.
[[Page 1602]]
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all
shipments of titanium sponge from Russia entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates
for subject merchandise manufactured and exported directly to the
United States by AVISMA will be 0.00 percent; (2) the cash deposit
rates for merchandise exported to the United States by Interlink Metals
& Chemicals, S.A. and TMC Trading International, Ltd. will be 0.00
percent; (3) merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not
covered in this review but covered in the original LTFV investigation
or a previous administrative review and which have a separate rate, the
cash deposit rate will continue to be the most recent rate published in
the final determination or final results for which the manufacturer or
exporter received a company-specific rate; (4) for Russian
manufacturers or exporters not covered in the LTFV investigation or in
this or prior administrative reviews, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the Russia-wide rate; and (5) the cash deposit rate for
non-Russian exporters of subject merchandise from Russia that were not
covered in the LTFV investigation or in this or prior administrative
reviews will be the rate applicable to the Russian supplier of that
exporter. These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations
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 notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') in this review of their
responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. See 63 FR 24391,
24403 (May 4, 1998). Timely written notification of the return/
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)).
Dated: January 5, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-552 Filed 1-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-U