[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 10, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1950-1952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-776]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-484-801]


Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From Greece: Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: Based on a request by a Greek producer, Tosoh Hellas A.I.C., 
the Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on electrolytic manganese dioxide from 
Greece.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales by Tosoh Hellas A.I.C. 
have not been made below normal value. If these preliminary results are 
adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct 
the Customs Service to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties 
all entries of electrolytic manganese dioxide from Tosoh Hellas A.I.C. 
during the period of review.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 10, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hermes Pinilla or Richard Rimlinger, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 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, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

Background

    On April 17, 1989, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(54 FR 15243) the antidumping duty order on electrolytic manganese 
dioxide (EMD) from Greece. On April 12, 2000, the Department published 
in the Federal Register a notice advising of the opportunity to request 
an administrative review of this order for the period April

[[Page 1951]]

1, 1999, through December 31, 1999 (65 FR 19736). Tosoh Hellas A.I.C. 
(Tosoh), a Greek producer, requested a review on April 27, 2000. In 
response to this request, the Department published a notice of 
initiation of administrative review on June 2, 2000, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.213(b) (65 FR 35320. The Department is conducting this 
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
    On April 20, 2000, the International Trade Commission (ITC), 
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, determined that revocation of 
the antidumping order on EMD from Japan would not be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably 
foreseeable time. As a result of this determination the Department 
revoked the antidumping order on EMD from Japan. The Department 
published the revocation in the Federal Register on May 31, 2000, with 
an effective date of January 1, 2000 (65 FR 34661). Therefore, the 
period covered by this administrative review is April 1, 1999, through 
December 31, 1999, rather than April 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000.

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of EMD from Greece. 
EMD is manganese dioxide (MnO2) that has been refined in an 
electrolysis process. The subject merchandise is an intermediate 
product used in the production of dry-cell batteries. EMD is sold in 
three physical forms, powder, chip, or plate, and two grades, alkaline 
and zinc-chloride. EMD in all three forms and both grades is included 
in the scope of the order. This merchandise is currently classifiable 
under item number 2820.10.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS number is provided for convenience and 
customs purposes. It is not determinative of the products subject to 
the order. The written product description remains dispositive.

Constructed Export Price

    In calculating the U.S. price, we used constructed export price 
(CEP) as defined in section 772(b) of the Act because Tosoh sells 
subject merchandise through an U.S. affiliated company in the United 
States. We calculated CEP based on the packed, delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for 
any movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the 
Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the Statement 
of Administrative Action (SAA), H. Doc 103-319 vol. 1, 822-825 (1994), 
we calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses associated with 
economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct 
selling expenses and indirect selling expenses.
    With respect to CEP profit, section 772(d)(3) of the Act requires 
the Department, in determining CEP, to identify and deduct from the 
starting price in the U.S. market an amount for profit allocable to 
selling and further-manufacturing activities in the United States. 
Section 772(f) of the Act provides the rule for determining the amount 
of CEP profit to deduct from the CEP starting price. In this review, 
since we do not have any cost information to calculate CEP profit, we 
determined, pursuant to subsection 772(f)(2)(D), that the best 
available sources of profit information are the 1999 financial 
statements which the respondent and its U.S. affiliate submitted in 
response to section A of our questionnaire. See Tosoh's Analysis 
Memorandum dated December 18, 2000 (Analysis Memo).
    We made adjustments, where appropriate, for domestic inland 
freight, warehousing expenses, international freight, and brokerage and 
handling in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.401(i), we used the shipment date as the date of sale for 
the U.S. market, in accordance with our standard practice, because the 
invoice date post-dates the date of shipment. See Bulk Aspirin from the 
PRC, 65 FR 33805 (May 25, 2000), accompanying decision memorandum at 
comment 15, and cases cited therein.
    Finally, in accordance with section 772(d)(1)(B) and (C) of the 
Act, we adjusted CEP to reflect a rebate which Tosoh is contractually 
obligated to make to its customer based on the relationship of its 
price, after all previously described adjustments, and normal value. 
For further details see the December 18, 2000, Analysis Memo.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a basis for calculating normal value, we 
compare the respondent's volume of home-market sales of the foreign 
like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise in 
accordance with section 773(a) of the Act. Because the aggregate volume 
of home-market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five 
percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, we determined that the home market provides a viable basis 
for calculating normal value. Therefore, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value on the price at which 
the foreign like product was first sold to unaffiliated customers for 
consumption in the exporting country in the usual commercial quantities 
and in the ordinary course of trade.
    We calculated monthly, weighted-average normal values. Because 
identical merchandise was not sold during the relevant contemporaneous 
period, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign 
like product in accordance with section 771(16)(B) of the Act.
    Prices in the exporting country were based on packed, free-on-truck 
prices to the unaffiliated purchasers. Where applicable, we made 
adjustments for differences in packing in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in 
costs attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the 
merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and for 
differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 773 
(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. With respect to our 
comparisons to CEP, we made circumstances-of-sale adjustments by 
deducting home-market direct selling expenses from normal value.

Level of Trade

    To the extent practicable, we determine normal value for sales at 
the same level of trade as the U.S. sales in accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. The normal value level of trade is that of the 
starting-price sales in the home market. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(iii). 
For CEP sales, the U.S. level of trade is the level of the constructed 
sale from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether home-market sales were at a different level of 
trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and 
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer 
and the unaffiliated customer. Tosoh reported that there was only one 
channel of distribution in the home market and, having determined that 
the same selling functions are provided to all home-market customers, 
we conclude that there is only one level of trade. Because all of 
Tosoh's U.S. sales were CEP sales, we identified the level of trade 
based on the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under 
section 772(d) of the Act, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(ii). Based on 
our analysis, we considered CEP sales which involve the same selling 
functions to constitute a single level of trade. Based on the record, 
we found that there were significant

[[Page 1952]]

differences between the selling activities associated with the home-
market level of trade and those associated with the CEP level of trade. 
Therefore, we determined that CEP sales were at a different level of 
trade from the home-market sales. Consequently, we could not match U.S. 
sales to sales at the same level of trade in the home market. Moreover, 
data necessary to determine a level-of-trade adjustment was not 
available. Therefore, because home-market sales were made at a more 
advanced stage of distribution than that of the CEP level, we made a 
CEP-offset adjustment when comparing CEP and home-market sales in 
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. For a more detailed 
description of our analysis, see the Level-of-Trade section of our 
December 18, 2000, Analysis Memo.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine a weighted-
average dumping margin of 0.00 percent for Tosoh for the period April 
1, 1999, through December 31, 1999.
    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. Hearing requests should specify the number 
of participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Any 
hearing, if requested, will be held 40 days after the date of 
publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Issues 
raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the respective 
case and rebuttal briefs. Interested parties may submit case briefs 
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal 
briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may 
be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this 
notice.
    Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the 
arguments (1) a table of contents, (2) a statement of the issue, (3) a 
list of authorities used, and (4) an executive summary of issues. 
Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including 
footnotes.
    Hearing requests should specify the number of participants and 
provide a list of the issues to be discussed. All memoranda to which we 
refer in this notice can be found in the public reading room, located 
in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department of 
Commerce building.
    The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any such written briefs or at a hearing. The Department will 
issue final results of this review within 120 days of publication of 
these preliminary results.
    Upon completion of the final results of this administrative review, 
if there is no change from our preliminary results, we will instruct 
the Customs Service to liquidate all appropriate entries without regard 
to antidumping duties.
    Effective January 1, 2000, this order was revoked. (65 FR 26567, 
May 8, 2000). As a result, no cash deposit of estimated antidumping 
duties are required on imports of EMD from Japan after January 1, 2000.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 2, 2001.
Troy H. Cribb,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-776 Filed 1-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P