[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7624-7626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-3694]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-570-840]


Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China; Amended 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of amended final results of the administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on manganese metal from the People's 
Republic of China.

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

SUMMARY: On March 13, 1998, the Department of Commerce published (62 FR 
12440) the final results and partial rescission of the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on manganese metal from the 
People's Republic of China. The review covered the period June 14, 1995 
through January 31, 1997. Subsequent to the publication of the final 
results, we received comments from both petitioners and respondents 
alleging various ministerial errors. After analyzing the comments 
submitted, we are amending our final results to correct certain 
ministerial errors. This amendment to the final results is published in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(c).

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 16, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory 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 numbers (202) 482-2239 or (202) 482-
4087, respectively.

Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 
(``the Act''), as amended, 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''). Additionally, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
to 19 CFR 353 (April 1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 13, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published in the Federal Register the final results and partial 
rescission of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order 
covering the period of June 14, 1995 through January 31, 1997 on 
manganese metal from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). See 
Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of China; Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 
12440 (March 13, 1998) (``Final Results of Review''). Subsequently, the 
following parties submitted ministerial error allegations: 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'').
    On April 9, 1998 the petitioners filed a summons with the Court of 
International Trade (``CIT''), and in a subsequent complaint dated May 
11, 1998 challenged the Department's final results of the 
administrative review. The Department, therefore, suspended any action 
on the ministerial error allegations until the CIT issued, on November 
4, 1998, an order of dismissal of the petitioners' complaint.
    A summary of each allegation along with the Department's response 
is included below. We are hereby amending our final results, pursuant 
to 19 CFR 353.28(c), to reflect the correction of those errors which 
are clerical in nature.

Analysis of Comments Received

    Allegation 1: The petitioners argue that the Department erred in 
its calculation of the value of Factors A and K.\1\ In order to adjust 
the factor prices to a period contemporaneous with the period of review 
(``POR''), the Department multiplied each surrogate value by the change 
in world-traded prices between 1993, the period for which the surrogate 
value is quoted, and the Japanese fiscal year 1995. (As explained in 
the Final Results of Review, we used as a proxy for world-traded ore 
prices the annual contract price in Japan of high-grade manganese ore.) 
The petitioners note that the record contains world-traded ore prices 
for 1996 as well. The petitioners argue that, because the POR is June 
14, 1995 through January 31, 1997, the Department should have used an 
average of the 1995 and 1996 world-traded prices, as this would be more 
representative of the prices in effect throughout the duration of the 
POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A key to the naming convention for business proprietary 
factors of production is included as Exhibit J of the Memorandum to 
the File: Calculations for the Final Results of Review (March 9, 
1998) (``Calculation Memorandum''). A public version of this 
document is available in the Department's Central Records Unit, Room 
B-099.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The respondents counter that the petitioners' argument involves a 
deliberate choice by the Department about methodology and, therefore, 
does not properly fall within the definition of ministerial error. The 
respondents further note that the petitioners themselves in their 
submission acknowledge that this point is methodological in nature.
    Department's Position: We agree with the respondents. The 
petitioners' argument involves a methodological decision by the 
Department and, as such, does not constitute a ministerial error. This 
methodology is clearly identified in the Final Results of Review and in 
the Calculation Memorandum. Thus, no revision has been made.
    Allegation 2: The petitioners argue that the Department's choice of 
a surrogate ore from ``Producer X'' for valuing Factor B is inferior to 
the petitioners' proposed surrogate from Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores 
Ltd. based on a comparison of the manganese-to-iron ratios of the two.
    The respondents counter that the petitioners' argument involves a 
deliberate choice by the Department about methodology and, therefore, 
does not properly fall within the definition of ministerial error.
    Department's Position: We agree with the respondents. The 
Department's choice of any one surrogate value over alternative values 
does not represent a ministerial error. The selection of appropriate 
surrogate values for manganese ore in this case has been a highly 
contentious issue. During the course of the administrative review, the 
Department considered all of the arguments presented by the parties, in 
favor of and opposed to each ore surrogate alternative. Our reasons for 
choosing the ore from ``Producer X'' to value Factor B have been 
clearly

[[Page 7625]]

enunciated in the Final Results of Review. Therefore, no revision to 
this calculation has been made.
    Allegation 3: The petitioners argue that the Department, in its 
calculation of the surrogate value for Factor K, has assigned to that 
factor an incorrect average manganese content. According to the 
petitioners, documents on the file indicate that the correct content is 
much lower.
    The respondents offer no comment.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners. The 
Department misinterpreted the reported manganese dioxide content of 
Factor K as its manganese content. We have revised this calculation 
accordingly.
    Allegation 4: The petitioners argue that the Department has 
identified incorrectly the mode of transportation used in one of the 
shipments of Factor J. According to the petitioners, verified 
information on the record indicates that the correct mode is by train 
rather than by truck.
    The respondents argue the petitioners are wrong because the 
Department verified that two modes of transportation are used to supply 
    Factor J.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners. In the 
calculation of the weighted-average freight cost for all of the 
suppliers of Factor J, the Department inadvertently listed one shipment 
as being transported by truck rather than by train. The freight 
calculation has therefore been revised to reflect the correct mode of 
transportation.
    Allegation 5: The petitioners argue that the Department's computed 
unit consumption value for Factor O is incorrect based on verified 
information contained in the record.
    The respondents agree with the petitioners that the Department 
erred in its calculation; however, what the respondents argue to be the 
correct value is different from that of the petitioners. The 
respondents contend that the value for Factor O should be the value 
verified by the Department.
    Department's Position: We disagree with both the petitioners and 
the respondents. We have reexamined our calculation for Factor O and 
have confirmed that it is correct. The value put forward by the 
respondents is the verified weight of a single unit of Factor O, rather 
than the amount of Factor O consumed in the production of one metric 
ton of manganese metal (i.e., Factor O unit consumption). Therefore, 
the respondents' figure does not represent the unit consumption of 
Factor O, unit consumption being the goal of the particular calculation 
in question. The difference between our figure and the petitioners' 
figure appears to be only the result of rounding numbers in the 
intermediate calculations to a different decimal place. Consequently, 
no revision to this calculation has been made.
    Allegation 6: The petitioners allege that the Department mistakenly 
has included a by-product credit in the factors of production of 
certain manganese metal powder manufacturers even though the record 
indicates that no by-products are generated in the powder production 
process.
    The respondents counter that, because manganese metal flake is an 
input into powder production and the Department did not account for the 
by-product in the flake-production stage, it must therefore take it 
into account at the powder-producing stage.
    Department's Position: We disagree with both the petitioners and 
the respondents. The record indicates that a by-product is generated 
during production of flake, but not during the production of manganese 
metal powder. Accordingly, we have included a by-product credit when 
calculating the flake cost of production. However, flake is also used 
as an input into powder production. To value the flake input into 
powder production, we have used the calculated cost of direct 
materials, direct labor, and direct electricity of flake manufacture, 
inclusive of the by-product credit assigned to the flake producer. 
Therefore, no revision to the calculation is necessary.
    Allegation 7: The petitioners note that, in the Department's 
weighted-average dumping margin calculation for these final results, 
the Department used the U.S. gross unit price, whereas in past 
proceedings the Department has used U.S. net unit price.
    The respondents counter that the petitioners' point is of a 
methodological nature and does not represent a clerical error.
    Department's Position: The petitioners are correct that the 
Department erred in this calculation. The Department intended to 
calculate the dumping margin by dividing the U.S. net total value into 
the total amount of duty due. The error was the result of misdirected 
cell references in our calculation spreadsheet. The dumping margin 
calculation has been revised accordingly.
    Allegation 8: The petitioners contend that the Department should 
have included adjustments for bank charges and inspection fees.
    The respondents counter that the petitioners' point is of a 
methodological nature and does not represent a clerical error.
    Department's Position: As explained in Comment 13 in the Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Manganese Metal 
from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 56045, 56052 (November 6, 
1995), and in the Calculation Memorandum, the Department's established 
policy in non-market-economy cases is not to make circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments. These bank charges and inspection fees are selling 
expenses. Therefore, this omission was intentional on the part of the 
Department and, as such, does not represent a ministerial error. 
Consequently, no revision is necessary.
    Allegation 9: The respondents allege that, in its calculation of 
the value of Factor B, the Department used the lower of the reported 
range of manganese contents rather than the average for the reported 
range of the surrogate value.
    The petitioners had no comment.
    Department's Position: We agree with the respondents. The 
Department inadvertently used the reported minimum rather than the 
reported average content. The value for Factor B has therefore been 
recalculated using the reported average manganese content.
    Allegation 10: The respondents argue that the Department erred in 
its adjustment for the chemical composition of Factor C in that it 
divided rather than multiplied the factor price by its chemical 
content.
    The petitioners counter that the Department's calculation is 
correct based on verified information on record.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners. We have 
reviewed our calculation for the chemical composition of Factor C and 
have confirmed it is correct. No revision is necessary.

Amended Final Results of Review

    As a result of our analysis of the ministerial error allegations 
received, we are amending margins we published in the final results. We 
hereby determine the following weighted-average margins exist for the 
period June 14, 1995 through January 31, 1997:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIED.......................................................         3.28
CMIECHN/CNIECHN............................................         1.94
CEIEC*.....................................................        11.77
Minmetals*.................................................         5.88

[[Page 7626]]

 
PRC-wide...................................................      143.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*CEIEC and Minmetals reported that they had no sales to the United
  States during the POR. The rate for each of these companies will
  therefore remain unchanged from that determined in Notice of Amended
  Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Manganese Metal from
  the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 4415 (February 6, 1996) (``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 amended cash deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of this notice of amended 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., HIED and 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., CEIEC and 
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 is in accordance with section 751(a)(1) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22. This amendment to 
the final results is published in accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(c).

    Dated: February 8, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-3694 Filed 2-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P