[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45962-45964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-21969]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-862]


Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Foundry Coke From the People's Republic of China

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

ACTION: Amended Final Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 31, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doreen Chen, Alex Villanueva, Marlene 
Hewitt or James Doyle, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, Office 9, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-0193, (202) 482-6412, (202) 482-1385 or 
(202) 482-0159, respectively.

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's 
regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

Scope of the Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is coke 
larger than 100 mm (4 inches) in maximum diameter and at least 50 
percent of which is retained on a 100-mm (4 inch) sieve, of a kind used 
in foundries.
    The foundry coke products subject to this investigation were 
classifiable under subheading 2704.00.00.10 (as of Jan 1, 2000) and are 
currently classifiable under subheading 2704.00.00.11 (as of July 1, 
2000) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope 
of this investigation is dispositive.

Amendment to the Final Determination

    On July 23, 2001, the Department determined that foundry coke from 
the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') is being, or is likely to be, 
sold in the United States at less than fair value (``LTFV''), as 
provided in section 735(a) of the Tariff Act. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Foundry Coke from the 
People's Republic of China, 66 FR 39487 (July 31, 2001).
    On July 30, 2001, respondents, CITIC Trading Co., Ltd. (``CITIC''), 
Shanxi Dajin International (Group) Co., Ltd. (``Dajin''), Minmetals 
Townlord Technology Co. (``Minmetals''), and Sinochem International 
Co., Ltd. (``Sinochem'') timely filed an allegation that the Department 
made ministerial errors in the final determination. On August 6, 2001, 
petitioners, ABC Coke, Citizens Gas and Coke Utility, Erie Coke 
Corporation, Sloss Industries Corporation, and Tonawanda Coke 
Corporation, timely filed comments in rebuttal to respondents' alleged 
errors.
    Comment 1: Respondents collectively argue that the Department 
verified, and the respondents correctly reported, the freight distance 
from the factory to the port. Respondents argue that it is clear that 
the rail schedule submitted by respondents (See Respondents' May 1, 
2001 Submission at Exhibit 6) established the rail rates for specific 
distances on a per metric ton basis, not on a per metric ton per 
kilometer basis, as the Department has used to calculate margins for 
all respondents. Respondents conclude that the Department erred, by 
first, using an incorrect transportation distance to select the 
appropriate rail rate, notwithstanding the fact that the rail schedule 
from the Indian Railway Conference Association contains specific rates 
for different ranges of transportation distances; and, second, by 
multiplying the incorrectly selected rail rate by the distances of the 
transport. Respondents allege that the Department's current methodology 
grossly overstates the freight by the factor of the distance used and 
should be corrected to reach an accurate margin calculation for each of 
the respondents. Respondents argue that the Department should revise 
its normal value programs to reflect the correct freight by basing its 
calculation on the Indian Railway Conference Association rate schedule 
for the appropriate (and accurate) supplier distance that was submitted 
and verified as part of the record.
    Respondents claim that in the normal value programs, the Department 
universally used a freight distance of 741-750 kilometers to calculate 
freight for the transport of coking coal from the suppliers to the 
producers. Respondents argue that the Department should revise its 
normal value programs to reflect the correct freight using the rail 
schedule from the Indian Railway Conference Association.
    Petitioners assert that the Department correctly calculated freight 
rates and achieved the correct result because the Department applied 
the rate on a per kilometer basis.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners in part and 
respondents in part. The rail schedule does establish rail rates for 
specific distance ranges on a per metric ton basis. In the rail freight 
calculation, the Department used the rail rate that corresponded to the 
distance from the coke manufacturer to the nearest port. The Department 
did not use the rate corresponding to the distance between the 
suppliers of coal and the producer. Because the distance range used by 
the Department is greater, the corresponding rate per ton is also 
greater. However, the Department divided the rate by the largest number 
of kilometers in the distance range used.
    We agree with respondents that we should have used the rail rates 
per ton that corresponded to the distance between the suppliers of coal 
and the producer. We have revised the margin calculation program using 
the

[[Page 45963]]

appropriate rail rate, and divided it by the correct number of 
kilometers. We have also corrected another clerical error that relates 
to the calculation for rail freight in CITIC's and Sinochem's margin 
program.
    We disagree with respondents' claim that multiplying the average 
freight rate per ton per kilometer by the kilometer transport distance 
applicable to the suppliers of coal to the producer represents a 
ministerial error because respondents are in effect requesting the 
Department to alter its calculation formula, which is clearly a 
substantive matter, not a ministerial error issue. As the Department 
may only make corrections to ministerial errors at this point in the 
proceeding, we did not make the requested change.
    Respondents are incorrect that we used a rate based on 741-750 
kilometers. The surrogate value exhibit for freight misidentified the 
rail rate used in the final determination. The exhibit indicates that 
the rate is based on the rate for 741-750 kilometers; however, the rail 
rate used in the freight calculation was based on the rate for the 
distance from the factory to the port.
    We also note that contrary to respondents' assertions, this issue 
regarding rail rates does not apply to all respondents as Dajin and 
Minmetals did not report rail as the means of transport for any of 
their inputs.
    Comment 2: CITIC, Minmetals and Sinochem argue that the Department 
continued to use the same freight distance that was used in the 
preliminary determination to calculate domestic inland freight. They 
argue that the Department should correct the margin calculation program 
and use the correct freight distance that was verified on March 19, 
2001. Petitioners did not comment on this issue.
    Department's Position: We agree with CITIC, Minmetals and Sinochem. 
We have revised the margin calculation program for CITIC to calculate 
domestic inland freight based on the correct freight distance.

Dajin

    Comment 3: Dajin argues that the Department's final determination 
used the highest normal value calculated in the preliminary 
determination as the adverse facts available rate for those producers 
identified as ``missing suppliers.'' Dajin argues that the Department 
should use the highest calculated normal value from the amended final 
determination for those suppliers identified as ``missing suppliers.''
    Petitioners disagree with Dajin's assertion that the Department 
should use the highest final calculated normal value as adverse facts 
available for ``missing suppliers.'' Petitioners argue that the 
Department should continue to use the adverse facts available rate used 
in the final determination, but calculated at the preliminary 
determination, for the ``missing suppliers'' because the application of 
the highest final calculated normal value may permit non-responding 
suppliers to benefit from lack of cooperation in this investigation.
    Department's Position: We agree with Dajin and have applied as 
adverse facts available, the highest normal value calculated in the 
amended final determination. We have revised the margin calculation to 
reflect this correction.
    Comment 4: Dajin argues that the Department used the incorrect 
gross unit price for the sales reported by Dajin. Dajin argues that the 
Department should correct the margin calculation for Dajin to reflect 
the correct U.S. prices that were verified. Petitioners had no comment 
regarding this issue.
    Department's Position: We disagree with Dajin. Dajin's allegation 
rests on our not using all of its originally reported figures for gross 
unit price. However, some of these gross unit prices were found to be 
inaccurate based on our findings at verification. Therefore, as 
explained in the Analysis Memorandum, we modified gross unit price for 
certain sales based on the results of verification. Analysis for the 
Final Determination of Foundry Coke from the People's Republic of 
China: Shanxi Dajin International (Group) Company (July 23, 2001) at 
pp. 2-3. For other sale(s), we used the originally reported gross unit 
price found to be accurate as a result of verification. Therefore, we 
will not make the changes to gross unit price as urged by respondents.

Sinochem

    Comment 5: Sinochem argues that it believes that the Department 
used an incorrect distance to calculate the surrogate value for rail, 
and has applied a unit cost for rail transport for Sinochem's supplier 
which is different from that found in the normal value program. 
Sinochem states that the Department should correct the margin program 
for Sinochem to reflect the correct unit value for rail transport for 
Sinochem's supplier. Petitioners argue that the Department used the 
correct unit value that it calculated based on the Department's 
calculation for each kilometer as the average railway freight rate in 
the normal value program.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners and disagree with 
Sinochem. We released an inaccurate draft calculation sheet for 
freight. We have corrected the calculation sheet and will release it to 
all parties. We note that there was no change to the final margin 
resulting from this issue because the correct number was used in the 
final calculation.
    Comment 6: Sinochem argues that the Department, in its cost 
calculation for Sinochem's supplier, used an incorrect value as the 
unit cost of igniting coal. Sinochem states that the Department has 
revised the coal input value for purposes of the final determination 
and should use this new value in the margin program to reflect the 
correct unit cost for igniting coal for Sinochem's supplier. 
Petitioners had no comment regarding this issue.
    Department's Position: After a review of respondent's allegation, 
we agree with Sinochem and have corrected our margin calculation to 
reflect the corrected coal input value for igniting coal.
    We are amending the final determination of the antidumping duty 
investigation of Foundry Coke from the PRC to reflect the correction of 
the above-cited ministerial errors. The revised final weighted-average 
dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Original     Revised
                                                  weighted     weighted
             Exporter/manufacturer                average      average
                                                   margin       margin
                                                  percent      percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITIC.........................................        78.03        51.43
Minmetals.....................................        76.19        75.58
Dajin.........................................       109.85       101.62
Sinochem......................................       163.73       105.91
All Others Rate...............................       214.89       214.89
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are 
directing the United States Customs Service (``Customs'') to continue 
suspending liquidation on all imports of the subject merchandise from 
the PRC. Customs shall require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond 
equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds the 
export price as indicated in the chart above. These suspension-of-
liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission of our amended final determination.

[[Page 45964]]

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 24, 2001.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-21969 Filed 8-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P