[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 16, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12977-12982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6281]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-122-814]


Pure Magnesium From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of administrative review and 
determination not to revoke order in part.

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

SUMMARY: On May 12, 1998, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on pure magnesium from Canada and its notice of intent not 
to revoke the order with respect to pure magnesium produced by Norsk 
Hydro Canada Inc. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment 
on the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments 
received, we have made certain changes for the final results.
    This review covers one producer/exporter of pure magnesium to the 
United States during the period August 1, 1996, through July 31, 1997. 
The review indicates no dumping margins during the review period.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 16, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zak Smith or Stephanie Hoffman, Import 
Administration, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Office 1, U.S. Department 
of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 
20230; telephone (202) 482-0189 or 482-4198, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting this 
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930 (``the Act''), as amended. Unless otherwise indicated, all 
citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act

[[Page 12978]]

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to those 
codified at 19 CFR part 351 (April 1998).

Background

    On May 12, 1998, the Department published the preliminary results 
of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure 
magnesium from Canada and notice of the intent not to revoke the order 
in part (63 FR 26147) (``Preliminary Results''). The producer/exporter 
in this review is Norsk Hydro Canada Inc. (``NHCI''). We received 
comments and rebuttal comments from NHCI and petitioner, Magnesium 
Corporation of America (``Magcorp'') (see Interested Party Comments, 
below). A hearing was held on July 29, 1998. The time limit for the 
final results of this administrative review was extended on both 
September 16, and November 18, 1998.
    Subsequent to the Department's decision in Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon 
Steel Plate From Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Determination To Revoke in Part (64 FR 2173, 
(January 13, 1999) (``Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada''), NHCI 
made a submission commenting upon the position taken by the Department 
in that case. Although the deadline for submission of argumentation had 
passed, given the length of time (more than six months) that has 
elapsed since our formal comment period and in light of the potential 
relevance of the Department's determination in Corrosion-Resistant 
Steel from Canada, we decided to place NHCI's submission on the record 
and take it into account in these final results. We also permitted 
petitioner to comment upon Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada and 
respondent's submission concerning that determination.

Scope of the Review

    The product covered by this review is pure magnesium. Pure 
unwrought magnesium contains at least 99.8 percent magnesium by weight 
and is sold in various slab and ingot forms and sizes. Granular and 
secondary magnesium are excluded from the scope of this review. Pure 
magnesium is currently classified under subheading 8104.11.0000 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS''). The HTS item number is provided 
for convenience and for customs purposes. The written description 
remains dispositive.

Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part

    The Department ``may revoke, in whole or in part'' an antidumping 
duty order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. 
While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department 
must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a 
procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This 
regulation requires, inter alia, that a company requesting revocation 
must submit the following: (1) A certification that the company has 
sold the subject merchandise at not less than normal value (``NV'') in 
the current review period and that the company will not sell at less 
than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold the 
subject merchandise in each of the three years forming the basis of the 
request in commercial quantities; and (3) an agreement to reinstatement 
in the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent 
to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 
351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, the Department may 
revoke an order, in part, if it concludes that (1) the company in 
question has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period 
of at least three consecutive years; (2) it is not likely that the 
company will in the future sell the subject merchandise at less than 
NV; and (3) the company has agreed to its immediate reinstatement in 
the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to 
the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 
351.222(b)(2).
    In our Preliminary Results, we determined that ``based on the 
evidence on the record, we cannot reasonably conclude that NHCI is not 
likely to dump in the future if the order were revoked'' (see 
Memorandum to Gary Taverman, dated May 4, 1998).
    After consideration of the various comments that were submitted in 
response to the preliminary results, we have concluded that we must 
determine, as a threshold matter, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222, 
whether the company requesting revocation sold the subject merchandise 
in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming the basis 
of the request. As stated in Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada (at 
2189), ``respondents must meet the threshold criterion of three 
consecutive years of sales in commercial quantities at not less than 
[normal value] in order to be eligible for revocation.''
    We determine that NHCI did not sell the subject merchandise in the 
United States in commercial quantities in any of the three years cited 
by NHCI to support its request for revocation. Specifically, NHCI made 
one sale in two of the relevant years and two sales in the other. One 
or two sales to the United States during a one year period is not 
consistent with NHCI's selling activity prior to the order nor is it 
consistent with NHCI's selling activity in the home market (see 
Memorandum from Team to Susan Kuhbach, ``Commercial Quantities,'' dated 
March 8, 1999, for a discussion of NHCI's selling activity). 
Furthermore, we found that, for each year, the volume of merchandise 
sold was less than one-half of one percent of the volume of merchandise 
sold in the last completed fiscal year prior to the order. These sales 
and volume figures are so small, both in absolute terms and in 
comparison with the period of investigation, that we cannot reasonably 
conclude that the zero margins NHCI received are reflective of the 
company's normal commercial experience. More specifically, the 
abnormally low level of sales activity does not provide a reasonable 
basis for determining that the discipline of the order is no longer 
necessary to offset dumping. Therefore, we find that NHCI does not 
qualify for revocation of the order on pure magnesium under 19 CFR 
351.222(b) and (e)(1)(ii).

Comparisons

    We calculated export price and normal value based on the same 
methodology used in the Preliminary Results, with the following 
exceptions:
    Based upon comments received from respondent, when determining the 
appropriate home market sales to use for comparison purposes the 
Department is now matching to identical sales. Also, based upon 
comments received from respondent, we have made the necessary changes 
such that home market freight charges are being converted 
appropriately.

Interested Party Comments

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309, we invited interested parties to 
comment on our Preliminary Results. On June 11 and June 16, 1998, 
petitioner and respondent submitted case briefs and rebuttal briefs, 
respectively. At the request of respondent, a public hearing was held 
on July 29, 1998. In addition, we received interested party comments 
from Chicago White Metal Casting, Inc., Magnesium Products of America, 
Inc., Reynolds Metals Company, and Alcan Aluminum Corporation.

[[Page 12979]]

Comment 1: Commercial Quantities

    Petitioner opposes revocation of the antidumping duty order in 
part, arguing that respondent has not met the requirements for 
revocation. Specifically, petitioner points to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii) 
which requires respondents to certify that they have sold the subject 
merchandise in commercial quantities to the United States during each 
of the three consecutive years. Petitioner argues that NHCI's sales to 
the United States during the last three review periods were far too 
small to be considered commercial quantities. In petitioner's view, 
these were merely token sales whose only purpose was to obtain three 
years of zero antidumping margins and qualify for revocation.
    Petitioner contends that the concept of commercial quantities 
refers to the aggregate volume of sales made by a respondent over the 
course of the entire period of review (``POR'') and not to the size of 
a single sale used in the calculation of an antidumping margin. In 
support for this argument, petitioner claims that there would be no 
reason for the requirement of commercial quantities in 19 CFR 
351.222(e)(1)(ii) if the term merely referred to the existence of any 
sale recognizable as a U.S. sale for calculating an antidumping margin 
because there would be no reason for the Department to ask a respondent 
to certify a fact that has already been established.
    Petitioner further argues that only if a respondent's sales are 
sufficiently large will a zero antidumping margin offer any valid 
indication that the respondent can continue to export the subject 
merchandise to the United States at normal prices if the antidumping 
duty order were revoked. As an example, petitioner points to the 
Department's decision not to revoke the antidumping duty order in Brass 
Sheet and Strip From Germany; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 61 FR 
49727 (September 23, 1996) (``German Brass Sheet'') due to the small 
volume of shipments. Petitioner also refers to the preamble of the 
final regulations in which the Department states that a revocation 
based on the absence of dumping is based on the fact that when a 
respondent sells in commercial quantities without dumping it has 
demonstrated that it will not resume dumping if the order is revoked 
(see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule (``Final 
Regulations''), 62 FR 27296, 27326 (May 19, 1997)).
    Respondent argues that the term ``commercial quantities'' refers 
not to the number or volume of sales, but to whether any individual 
sale was a normal size transaction for the industry. In support for 
this argument, respondent points to the proposed regulations in which 
the Department states that it will ``establish whether sales were made 
in commercial quantities based upon examination of the normal sizes of 
sales by the producer/exporter and other producers of subject 
merchandise.'' (See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Proposed 
Rule (``Proposed Regulations''), 61 FR 7308, 7320 (February 27, 1996)). 
Respondent believes that the Department never intended to consider the 
aggregate volume of sales made throughout the POR. Rather, NHCI argues, 
the concept of commercial quantities was included in the regulations to 
ensure that individual sales made during an intervening year were of 
sufficient size to permit the Department to conduct a review had one 
been requested (as opposed to sales of samples or prototypes and sales 
so small that they could not be regarded as bona fide commercial 
transactions). Respondent further argues that the Department's 
application of the criterion in Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada 
inappropriately disqualifies respondents from revocation, even when 
reviews are conducted in all three years.
    Department's Position: NHCI has requested revocation based on the 
absence of dumping. As explained above, to consider such a request we 
must determine, as a threshold matter, whether the company requesting 
revocation sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities in 
each of the three years forming the basis of the request. See 19 CFR 
351.222(e)(1)(i)-(iii); see also, 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1).
    We disagree with NHCI's argument that the commercial quantities 
criterion requires only that there be a bona fide commercial 
transaction during a given period. As the Department recently 
explained, ``sales during the POR which, in the aggregate, are an 
abnormally small quantity do not provide a reasonable basis for 
determining that the discipline of the order is no longer necessary to 
offset dumping'' (see Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada at 2175). 
As the record of this case demonstrates, NHCI did not sell the subject 
merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities in any of the 
three years cited by NHCI to support its request for revocation. 
Regardless of the bona fide nature of each transaction, these sales, in 
the aggregate, are abnormally small in quantity and do not provide the 
Department with a reasonable basis to make a revocation determination 
(see Memorandum from Team to Susan Kuhbach, ``Commercial Quantities,'' 
dated March 8, 1999).
    We also note that while the regulation requiring sales in 
commercial quantities may have developed from the unreviewed 
intervening year regulation, its application in all revocation cases 
based on an absence of dumping is reasonable and mandated by the 
regulations. The application of this requirement to all such cases is 
reflected not only in the provision for unreviewed intervening years 
(see 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1)), but also in the new general requirement 
that parties seeking revocation certify to sales in commercial 
quantities in each of the years on which revocation is to be based. See 
19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii). This requirement ensures that the 
Department's revocation determination is based upon a sufficient 
breadth of information regarding a company's normal commercial 
practice. As in Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada (at 2175), in 
this case the number of sales and the total sales volumes are so small, 
both in absolute terms and in comparison with the period of 
investigation and other review periods, that these sales do not provide 
sufficient information on a company's normal commercial experience to 
make a revocation decision. If sales are not reflective of a company's 
normal commercial activities, they can offer no basis upon which to 
make a revocation determination, regardless of whether we conducted a 
review or the sales took place in an intervening year.

Comment 2: Sales Drop-Off

    Petitioner argues that NHCI's withdrawal from the U.S. market in 
the two first review periods after imposition of the antidumping duty 
order and the company's insignificant U.S. sales in the subsequent 
three review periods demonstrates that NHCI cannot sell commercially 
significant quantities without resorting to dumping. Petitioner points 
to the Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Trade Agreements which  states  that   ``. . . the 
cessation of imports after the order, is highly probative of the 
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping'' (see H.R. Doc. 
316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (1994) p. 889). Petitioner argues 
that although this statement was made in the context of sunset reviews, 
it provides guidance on how a respondent would act in the absence of an 
antidumping order.

[[Page 12980]]

    Respondent states that it made no sales to the United States in the 
first and second review periods because of the prohibitively high 
antidumping and countervailing duty cash deposit rates. This lack of 
sales activity is irrelevant, according to NHCI, since NHCI made sales 
to the United States during the third, fourth, and fifth review periods 
which constituted a significant increase in sales compared to the first 
two review periods.
    Moreover, respondent argues that it would be incorrect to use the 
original period of investigation as a benchmark for NHCI's normal 
commercial behavior because at that time, the company was still in the 
process of ramping up production and establishing its customer base. 
Respondent explains that after the imposition of the antidumping duty 
order, it redirected its marketing strategy toward other export markets 
and developed a strong home market for pure magnesium. NHCI, along with 
other interested parties, notes that it also increased its production 
and sales of alloy magnesium to the extent that by 1997, it had become 
primarily a producer of alloy magnesium.
    Regarding petitioner's reference to the SAA, respondent argues that 
the cited portion deals with sunset and changed circumstances reviews 
and, therefore, does not apply to revocation reviews based on the 
absence of dumping. In sunset reviews, it is presumed that a drop-off 
in exports after the imposition of an antidumping duty order indicates 
increased likelihood of continued or resumed dumping if the order were 
revoked, but such presumption does not exist in the context of a 
revocation based on the absence of dumping, according to respondent.
    Department's Position: We have considered the parties' arguments 
regarding the post-order sales drop-off in a different context for 
these final results, which rely on the absence of sales in commercial 
quantities rather than the likelihood of future dumping. Regarding 
respondent's claim that it would be incorrect to use the original 
period of investigation as a benchmark for NHCI's normal commercial 
behavior, we disagree. Assessment of the threshold regulatory 
requirement that there be sales in commercial quantities during each of 
the three years of review cannot take place in a vacuum. The period of 
investigation is a logical and reasonable benchmark for this 
assessment, especially given that it is the only time period for which 
we have evidence concerning NHCI's commercial behavior with respect to 
exports to the United States without the discipline of an antidumping 
duty order. While we recognize that NHCI was a relatively new company 
at the time of the original investigation, logically this would tend to 
support the argument that their sales should have increased, rather 
than decreased.
    In addition to examining NHCI's commercial activity during the 
period of investigation, the Department also examined information 
regarding NHCI's sales of pure magnesium to other markets for the three 
years in question. Examination of the number and volume of sales made 
in these markets further supports our determination that the sales to 
the United States were not made in commercial quantities. Moreover, 
this very evidence indicates that NHCI has not completely redirected 
its market focus toward alloy magnesium but, in fact, maintains 
significant pure magnesium sales volumes in other pure magnesium 
markets, all of which are markedly smaller and more distant than the 
U.S. market.

Comment 3: Alleged Creation of New Revocation Requirement and Deviation 
from Normal Practice

    NHCI objects to the application by the Department of a new 
requirement in its Preliminary Results; namely, that a company must 
``participate meaningfully in the U.S. market'' to qualify for 
revocation. In support of its argument, NHCI points to the Department's 
statements in its Proposed Regulations and in the Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not 
to Revoke Order in Part: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of 
One Megabyte or Above From the Republic of Korea, 62 FR 39809 (July 24, 
1997) (``DRAMS from Korea'') where it said that the Final Regulations 
did not change the previous revocation requirements. Furthermore, 
respondent refers to past cases (e.g., Antifriction Bearings (Other 
Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from Italy, 60 FR 10959 
(February 28, 1995) and Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel, 57 FR 
10008 (March 23, 1992)) in which the Department decided to revoke 
antidumping duty orders although the exporters' U.S. sales were small.
    Respondent and other interested parties further argue that although 
the Department's regulations require a finding that respondent is 
unlikely to sell the subject merchandise below normal value in the 
future, the Department has generally agreed to revocation based on two 
criteria: three consecutive years of zero dumping margins; and an 
agreement by respondent to immediate reinstatement of the order if it 
resumes dumping in the future. According to NHCI, the Department has 
consistently found that these two criteria are dispositive of the ``not 
likely'' analysis and that the Department generally does not conduct 
such an analysis. Thus, NHCI claims that by not revoking the 
antidumping duty order based on these two criteria, the Department has 
deviated from its normal practice.
    Petitioner argues that, contrary to respondent's contention, there 
is no ``normal practice'' of revoking orders based on three years of 
zero deposit rates and certain certifications by respondent. Petitioner 
states that when determining the likelihood of resumed dumping in past 
cases (e.g., German Brass Sheet, Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel 
Pipes and Tubes from Taiwan, 56 FR 8741 (March 1, 1991), and DRAMs from 
Korea), the Department has considered factors other than the 
respondent's most recent dumping margins and its certification that it 
will not resume dumping.
    Department's Position: While the Department's substantive 
revocation criteria have not changed, the new regulations added a 
threshold criterion for revocation proceedings. Specifically, the 
Department now requires the company requesting revocation to have sold 
the subject merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three 
years forming the basis of the request. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii). 
Because the threshold requirement of sales in commercial quantities has 
not been met in this case, the analysis in these final results does not 
address the likelihood issue.

Comment 4: Failure to Revoke the Order Would be in Conflict With the 
WTO Agreement

    Respondent argues that a revocation of the order is mandated by the 
1994 WTO Antidumping Agreement because Article 11.1 of this agreement 
states that an antidumping duty ``shall remain in force only as long as 
and to the extent necessary to counteract dumping which is causing 
injury.'' Respondent supports this position by noting that in DRAMS 
from Korea a WTO panel found that the ``continued imposition [of an 
antidumping duty] must . . . be essentially dependent on, and therefore 
assignable to, a foundation of positive evidence that circumstances 
demand it'' (see United States--Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above From 
Korea, WTO Doc. WT/DS99/R (January 29, 1999)) (``DRAMS Panel''). 
Respondent further argues that the Department's decision in

[[Page 12981]]

Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada is inconsistent with this panel 
finding because it automatically disqualified a respondent from 
obtaining revocation without a foundation of positive evidence for 
doing so.
    Department's Position: The Department's revocation procedures are 
fully consistent with Article 11.1. Parties need only demonstrate that 
they are no longer dumping while commercially engaged in the U.S. 
market over a three year period. The requirement to which respondent 
objects merely establishes a reasonable evidentiary threshold. Absent 
commercially meaningful sales activity we do not have a sufficient 
record to make a reasoned judgement as to revocation. Thus, the 
threshold requirement of commercial quantities is necessary, 
appropriate, and consistent with our WTO obligations and the DRAMS 
Panel decision, because it is an objective condition by which the 
Department can make a reasonable determination based on positive 
evidence.

Comment 5: Failure To Revoke the Order Would Be Punitive

    Respondent argues that failure to revoke would improperly punish 
NHCI in light of the Department's determinations that the company has 
not been dumping. Moreover, NHCI states that the order and the review 
process have imposed a substantial burden on the company.
    Department's Position: Application of the regulatory requirements 
for revocation is not punitive; rather, these requirements reflect the 
Department's view that the actual revocation of an order can only occur 
after the collection and analysis of all the relevant information. 
While NHCI raised concerns during the proceeding that certain requests 
for information were burdensome, we note that NHCI was able to meet all 
such requests.

Comment 6: Market Conditions and Trends

    Petitioner claims that conditions in the U.S. magnesium market make 
dumping more likely because magnesium is a homogenous commodity product 
which consumers buy from the seller offering the lowest price. 
Petitioner cites to statements by an NHCI official to the effect that 
the future magnesium market can be characterized as one of declining 
real prices and oversupply. These trends, according to petitioner, 
increase the likelihood that NHCI would revert to dumping in order to 
boost its sales of the subject merchandise. Petitioner contends that 
the magnesium prices quoted by respondent are list prices to which 
discounts are applied before the actual transaction price is reached. 
In petitioner's view, such list prices have little meaning as 
indicators of the actual price level in the market.
    Petitioner claims that plans are underway to expand the production 
capacity of pure and alloy magnesium, both in Canada and other 
countries, and that this increased production will intensify 
competition and lead to a continuation of the drop in magnesium prices. 
Petitioner also contends that NHCI's new capacity will be utilized for 
the production of pure magnesium and it will be directed toward the 
U.S. market. Finally, petitioner asserts that it is very likely that 
NHCI will have to switch significant production capacity from alloy to 
pure magnesium.
    Respondent, along with other interested parties, disagrees with 
petitioner's description of pricing practices in the magnesium market. 
First, respondent says, customers do not always buy from the supplier 
offering the lowest price because other factors are also important. 
Second, magnesium is not a homogenous product and NHCI competes by 
offering high-quality products. Third, respondent disputes petitioner's 
allegation that it would have to undercut the prices of other producers 
by pointing to the sales it has made in the United States at market 
prices in the last three review periods.
    According to respondent, U.S. market prices have increased since 
the antidumping investigation. While conceding that there have been 
moderate adjustments in market prices, respondent argues that in real 
terms, magnesium prices increased significantly between 1990 and 1996. 
Thus, in respondent's opinion, prices will remain well above the level 
where dumping would be inevitable. Respondent further claims that 
petitioner has provided the prices of imported Russian and Chinese 
magnesium and, according to other interested parties as well, the 
pricing practices of these non-Western producers are inappropriate for 
comparison to a Western producer like NHCI. Finally, respondent 
contends that the price trends provided by petitioner are inconsistent 
with those of the U.S. Geological Survey.
    Respondent also disputes the notion that there is an oversupply of 
pure magnesium, stating that petitioner focuses on the demand/supply 
situation in 1996. According to respondent and other interested 
parties, the situation changed significantly in 1997 and current supply 
conditions are tight with inventories below normal levels. Respondent 
further states that demand for pure and alloy magnesium is expected to 
increase in both the United States and Canada. Respondent argues that 
it is, therefore, not at all certain that a major portion of NHCI's new 
capacity will be sold as pure magnesium.
    With respect to its expansion plans, respondent maintains that it 
has not made a final decision about expanding its magnesium-producing 
plant and that petitioner's allegation about a doubling of NHCI's 
production capacity, therefore, is wrong. Furthermore, petitioner's 
assertion that an expansion by NHCI would lead to a resumption of 
dumping is mere speculation, according to respondent.
    Respondent dismisses petitioner's allegations regarding other 
producers' expansion plans and states that some of these companies have 
not yet decided to build new magnesium plants. Finally, respondent 
argues, even if all the proposed new plants were built, there is no 
basis for petitioner's allegation that this increased competition would 
result in dumping because dumping does not occur as a result of lower 
prices, but as a result of price discrimination. In this context, 
respondent emphasizes that it has signed a certification that it will 
not engage in dumping in the future.
    Respondent and other interested parties also dispute petitioner's 
assertion that NHCI could easily switch its production from alloy to 
pure magnesium. Among other things, respondent points to its long-term 
supply contracts for alloy as evidence that it cannot easily switch 
production to pure magnesium.
    Department's Position: Because we have determined that NHCI is not 
eligible for revocation, we do not reach the likelihood of future 
dumping issue.

Comment 7: Case Precedents Used in the Preliminary Results

    Respondent argues that the case precedents on revocation cited by 
the Department in its Preliminary Results do not apply to the present 
case because the factual situation is different and because the 
Department considered mainly negative revocation decisions while it 
ignored an affirmative decision.
    Department's Position: As explained above, given the Department's 
finding that NHCI did not sell in commercial quantities, we do not 
reach the likelihood issue.

Comment 8: The Department Can Grant Revocation Over Petitioner's 
Objection

    Respondent argues that petitioner, Magcorp, cannot purport to 
represent the U.S. industry because the

[[Page 12982]]

Department determined in the investigation that petitioner represented 
only 22 percent of U.S. magnesium producers. Respondent contends that 
Magcorp is merely one producer objecting to the revocation of the order 
and that the Department has revoked orders in the past over the 
objections of a single producer.
    Department's Position: NHCI contested Magcorp's authority to 
represent the US industry in its challenge to the original less than 
fair value determination but did not prevail. (See Magnesium from 
Canada, No. USA-92-1904-03 (August 16, 1993).) Nothing has changed 
which would warrant a different conclusion in this proceeding. Because 
Magcorp is an interested party, it is entitled to participate and 
comment on revocation. Finally, our determination is based on the fact 
that NHCI has not met the revocation requirements, not on Magcorp's 
objection.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we find that the following margin 
exists for the period August 1, 1996, through July 31, 1997:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin
        Manufacturer/exporter                Period          (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norsk Hydro Canada Inc...............     8/1/96-7/31/97               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of the date of publication of this notice. The results of this review 
shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries 
of merchandise covered by the review and for future deposits of 
estimated duties for the manufacturers/exporters subject to this 
review. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to 
the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these 
final results of this new shipper administrative review, as provided by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the 
reviewed company will be the rate indicated above; (2) for companies 
not covered in this review, but covered in previous reviews or the 
original less-than-fair-value investigation, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, 
the cash deposit rate will be the most recent rate established for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor 
the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review or 
the original investigation, the cash deposit rate will be the ``all 
others'' rate of 21 percent established in the amended final 
determination of sales at less than fair value (58 FR 62643 (November 
29, 1993)).
    These deposit requirements will remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (``APOs'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. 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.
    We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice 
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 771(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 8, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-6281 Filed 3-15-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P