[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 175 (Monday, September 10, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47007-47008]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-22653]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-122-815]


Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium From Canada: Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of countervailing duty administrative 
reviews.

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

SUMMARY: On May 9, 2001, the Department of Commerce published in the 
Federal Register the preliminary results of the administrative reviews 
of the countervailing duty orders on pure magnesium and alloy magnesium 
from Canada for the period January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999. 
We received no comments on the preliminary results of these reviews. 
The Department has now completed these reviews in accordance with 
section 751(a) of the Act. The final results do not differ from the 
preliminary results of these reviews. For information on the net 
subsidy rate of the reviewed company, as well as for all non-reviewed 
companies, see the Final Results of Reviews section of this notice. We 
will instruct the Customs Service to assess countervailing duties 
accordingly.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Hastings or Craig Matney, AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Office 1, Group I, Import Administration, U.S. Department 
of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone (202) 482-3464 or (202) 482-1778, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions of section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), 
effective January 1, 1995 (``the Act''). 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 August 31, 1992, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the countervailing duty orders on pure magnesium and alloy 
magnesium from

[[Page 47008]]

Canada (57 FR 39392). The Department published the preliminary results 
of these administrative reviews on May 9, 2001 (see Pure Magnesium and 
Alloy Magnesium From Canada: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 66 FR 23669 (May 9, 2001)) (``Preliminary 
Results'').
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the reviews of these orders 
cover those producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which 
these reviews were specifically requested. Accordingly, these reviews 
cover only Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. (``NHCI''), the sole producer or 
exporter of the subject merchandise for which a review was requested. 
The petitioner in these reviews is the Magnesium Corporation of 
America.
    In the preliminary results of these reviews, the Department invited 
interested parties to comment on the results (see Preliminary Results). 
However, we received no comments. The Department did not conduct a 
hearing for these reviews because none was requested. The Department 
has now completed these reviews in accordance with section 751 of the 
Act.

Scope of the Orders

    The products covered by these orders are pure and alloy magnesium 
from Canada. Pure magnesium contains at least 99.8 percent magnesium by 
weight and is sold in various slab and ingot forms and sizes. Magnesium 
alloys contain less than 99.8 percent magnesium by weight with 
magnesium being the largest metallic element in the alloy by weight, 
and are sold in various ingot and billet forms and sizes.
    The pure and alloy magnesium are currently classifiable under items 
8104.11.0000 and 8104.19.0000, respectively, of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written descriptions of the merchandise subject to the orders are 
dispositive.
    Secondary and granular magnesium are not included in the scope of 
these orders. Our reasons for excluding granular magnesium are 
summarized in Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Pure and Alloy Magnesium From Canada, 57 FR 6094 (February 20, 
1992).

Period of Review

    The period of review for which we are measuring subsidies is from 
January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999.

Final Results of Reviews

    We have determined that no changes to our analysis are warranted 
for purposes of these final results. Therefore, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for each 
producer/exporter subject to these reviews. We will instruct the 
Customs Service (``Customs'') to assess countervailing duties as 
indicated below on all appropriate entries. For the period January 1, 
1999 through December 31, 1999, we determine the net subsidy rate for 
the reviewed company to be as follows:

                            Net Subsidy Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Manufacturer/exporter                       Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc......................................       1.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will also instruct Customs to collect cash deposits 
of estimated countervailing duties in the percentage detailed above on 
the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject merchandise 
from NHCI entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the date of publication of the final results of these reviews.
    Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor of a country-
wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for 
investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing 
countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed companies, 
are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as 
provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review 
will normally cover only those companies specifically named (see 19 CFR 
351.213(b)). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(c), for all companies for which 
a review was not requested, duties must be assessed at the cash deposit 
rate, and cash deposits must continue to be collected at the rate 
previously ordered. As such, the countervailing duty cash deposit rate 
applicable to a company can no longer change, except pursuant to a 
request for a review of that company. See Federal-Mogul Corporation and 
The Torrington Company v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 1993) 
and Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993). 
Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all companies except NHCI will be 
unchanged by the results of these reviews.
    Accordingly, we will instruct Customs to continue to collect cash 
deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific 
or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Except for Timminco 
Limited, which was excluded from the orders in the original 
investigations, these rates were established in the first 
administrative proceeding conducted under the URAA. See Final Results 
of the Second Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews: Pure 
Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from Canada, 62 FR 48607 (September 16, 
1997).
    In addition, for the period January 1, 1999 through December 31, 
1999, the assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed companies 
covered by these orders are the cash deposit rates in effect at the 
time of entry, except for Timminco Limited (which was excluded from the 
orders in the original investigations).
    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') 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 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.
    These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: August 31, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-22653 Filed 9-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P