[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 179 (Thursday, September 14, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55502-55504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-23687]


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

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 the Antidumping 
Duty Order in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of 1998-1999 administrative review and 
intent not to revoke.

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

[[Page 55503]]

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from Canada. The 
period of review is August 1, 1998 through July 31, 1999. This review 
covers imports of pure magnesium from one producer/exporter.
    For our final results, we have found that sales of the subject 
merchandise have not been made below normal value. We will instruct the 
Customs Service not to assess antidumping duties on the subject 
merchandise exported by this company. Furthermore, we are not revoking 
the antidumping duty order given that shipments of subject merchandise 
to the United States by Norsk Hydro Canada Inc. have not been made in 
commercial quantities for each of the three consecutive review periods 
that formed the basis of the revocation request. See Determination Not 
To Revoke Order section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jarrod Goldfeder or Meg Weems, 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 482-2613, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:   

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 of Commerce's (``the Department's'') 
regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1999).

Background

    This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of pure magnesium, 
Norsk Hydro Canada Inc. (``NHCI''). This period of review (``POR'') is 
August 1, 1998, through July 31, 1999.
    On May 10, 2000, the Department 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 NHCI (65 FR 30070) 
(``Preliminary Results''). We invited parties to comment on our 
Preliminary Results of review. NHCI filed a case brief on June 16, 
2000. The petitioner, Magnesium Corporation of America (``the 
petitioner''), filed a rebuttal brief on June 28, 2000. A public 
hearing was not held.

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 of the United States (``HTSUS''). The HTSUS 
item number is provided for convenience and for U.S. Customs Service 
(``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 
of 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).
    We must determine, as a threshold matter, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.222(e)(1)(ii), whether the company requesting revocation sold the 
subject merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three years 
forming the basis of the request. In our Preliminary Results, we 
determined that ``NHCI does not qualify for revocation of the order on 
pure magnesium because it does not have three consecutive years of 
sales in commercial quantities at not less than normal value.'' See 
Preliminary Results, 65 FR at 30071; see also Memorandum from Team to 
Susan Kuhbach, ``Commercial Quantities,'' dated April 20, 2000, for a 
discussion of NHCI's selling activity.
    After consideration of the various comments that were submitted in 
response to the Preliminary Results, we determine that NHCI did not 
sell the subject merchandise in the United States in commercial 
quantities in each of the three years cited by NHCI to support its 
request for revocation. See ``Analysis of Comments Received,'' below. 
Therefore, we find that NHCI does not qualify for revocation of the 
order on pure magnesium under 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii).
    Our determination is consistent with the two immediately preceding 
administrative reviews of this order. See Pure Magnesium From Canada; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 64 FR 12977, 12978 (March 
16, 1999) (``Fifth Review'') and Pure Magnesium From Canada; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not 
to Revoke Order in Part, 64 FR 50489, 50490 (September 17, 1999) 
(``Sixth Review''). In the Fifth Review, we determined 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 (the administrative review years 1994-1995, 
1995-1996, and 1996-1997). See Fifth Review, 64 FR at 12978. In the 
Sixth Review, we determined that NHCI did not sell the subject 
merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities in two of the 
three years cited by NHCI to support its request for revocation (the 
administrative review years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997). Thus, consistent 
with our findings in the Fifth Review and Sixth Review, we determine 
that NHCI does not qualify for revocation of the order on pure 
magnesium because it did not make sales at not less than NV in at least 
one of the three years cited by NHCI to support its request for 
revocation (the administrative review years 1996-1997), as provided for 
in 19 CFR 351.222(b) and (e)(1)(ii). Furthermore, we note that because

[[Page 55504]]

NHCI did not make sales in commercial quantities during the POR of the 
Fifth Review, it is not necessary to examine whether NHCI made sales in 
commercial quantities during the sixth and seventh review periods 
(i.e., 1997-98 and 1998-99).

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs in this 
administrative review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision 
Memorandum for the Seventh Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Determination Not to Revoke'' from Richard W. Moreland, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Import 
Administration, to Troy H. Cribb, Acting Assistant for Import 
Administration, dated September 7, 2000 (``Decision Memorandum''), 
which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which 
parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in 
the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. 
Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this 
review and the corresponding recommendations in this Decision 
Memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of 
the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete 
version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the 
World Wide Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and 
electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes From the Preliminary Results

    We calculated export price and NV based on the same methodology 
described in the Preliminary Results.

Final Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we determine that the following 
percentage weighted-average margin exists for the period August 1, 
1998, through July 31, 1999:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Manufacturer/exporter                       Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norsk Hydro Canada Inc....................  zero.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the weighted-average dumping margin is zero, we will 
instruct the Customs Service to liquidate all entries made during this 
review period without regard to antidumping duties for the subject 
merchandise that NHCI exported.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    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 administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for NHCI 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 351.305(a)(3). 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 violation which is 
subject to sanction.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 7, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--Issues in Decision Memo--

Comments and Responses

A. Revocation/Commercial Quantities

1. Compliance with the WTO Antidumping Agreement
2. Definition of Commercial Quantities
3. Retroactive Application
4. Procedural Requirements for Revocation
5. The Department's Revocation Practice
6. Benchmarks Used to Determine Commercial Quantities
7. Significant Drop-offs in Sales After Imposition of an Order
8. Changes to a Respondent's Commercial Practice
9. Whether the Evidence Demonstrates Commercial Quantities

[FR Doc. 00-23687 Filed 9-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P