[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