[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57217-57220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-22843]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-122-814]


Pure Magnesium From Canada; Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Notice of 
Intent Not To Revoke Order in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of 2000-2001 administrative 
review and intent not to revoke.

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

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, 2000, through July 31, 2001. This review 
covers imports of pure magnesium from one producer/exporter.
    We have preliminarily found that sales of subject merchandise have 
not been made below normal value. We have also preliminarily determined 
not to revoke the order with respect to pure magnesium from Canada 
produced by Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. If these preliminary results are 
adopted in our final results, we will instruct the Customs Service not 
to assess antidumping duties.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jarrod Goldfeder or Scott Holland,

[[Page 57218]]

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0189 or (202) 482-1279, 
respectively.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    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 Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'') by 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (``the 
Department's'') regulations refer to 19 CFR part 351 (2001).

Background

    On August 31, 1992, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (57 FR 39390) an antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from 
Canada. On August 1, 2001, the Department published a notice in the 
Federal Register (66 FR 39729) of ``Opportunity to Request an 
Administrative Review'' of this order. On August 31, 2001, Magnesium 
Corporation of America (the ``petitioner'') requested an administrative 
review of imports of the subject merchandise produced by Norsk Hydro 
Canada, Inc. (``NHCI''), and Magnola Metallurgy Inc. (``Magnola''). On 
August 31, 2001, NCHI made a similar request for review and also 
requested that the Department revoke the antidumping duty order. On 
October 1, 2001, the Department published a notice in the Federal 
Register (66 FR 49924) initiating the review for the period August 1, 
2000, through July 31, 2001.
    On October 10, 2001, we issued antidumping questionnaires to NHCI 
and Magnola. On October 29, 2001, NHCI requested to limit reporting of 
home market sales to the six-month period July 1 through December 31, 
2000. On October 31, 2001, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2)(ii) 
and 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2)(iii), we granted NHCI's request to limit the 
reporting of home market sales.
    On November 16, 2001, Magnola reported that it had no shipments of 
subject merchandise to the United States during the August 1, 2000, 
through July 31, 2001, period of review (``POR''). See ``Partial 
Rescission'' section, below.
    On November 26, 2001, we received NHCI's questionnaire response. On 
February 27, 2002, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to NHCI and 
received the response on March 13, 2002.
    On December 12, 2001, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(d)(2)(ii), 
the petitioner filed an allegation that NHCI had made sales below the 
cost of production (``COP'') during the POR. NHCI submitted an 
objection to the allegation on December 21, 2002. On January 9, 2002, 
the petitioner filed a reply to NHCI's objections. We found that the 
petitioner did not provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect 
that NHCI is selling pure magnesium in the United States at prices 
below the COP. See Memorandum from Team to Susan Kuhbach, ``Allegation 
of Sales Below Cost of Production,'' dated February 25, 2002. 
Accordingly, we did not initiate a sales-below-COP investigation.
    On April 15, 2002, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register (67 FR 
18173) extending the time limit for the completion of the preliminary 
results in this case by 120 days (i.e., until no later than September 
3, 2002).
    On July 16, 2002, we received notification that U.S. Magnesium, LLC 
(``U.S. Magnesium''), had become the successor-in-interest to the 
petitioner, Magnesium Corporation of America, for the purpose of this 
antidumping proceeding.

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this order 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 currently classifiable 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.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in July 2002, we verified 
information provided by NHCI using standard verification procedures, 
including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities, 
examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of 
original documentation containing relevant information. The Department 
reported its findings at the sales verification on September 3, 2002.

Partial Rescission

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding this 
review with respect to Magnola, which reported that it made no 
shipments of subject merchandise during this POR. We examined shipment 
data furnished by the Customs Service and are satisfied that the record 
does not indicate that there were U.S. shipments of subject merchandise 
from Magnola during the POR.

Export Price

    For sales to the United States, we used export price (``EP''), as 
defined in section 772(a) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold 
directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior 
to importation. The use of constructed export prices was not warranted 
based on the facts of the record. EP was based on the packed price to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions, 
consistent with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, for the following 
movement expenses: inland freight from the plant to the distribution 
warehouse, pre-sale warehousing expense, inland freight from the 
distribution warehouse to the unaffiliated customer, and foreign 
brokerage and handling.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales of pure magnesium in the home market to serve as a viable basis 
for calculating NV, we compared NHCI'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 respective aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market 
provided a viable basis for calculating NV. Therefore, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the prices at 
which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the 
exporting country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the 
ordinary course of trade.
    We calculated NV based on the price to unaffiliated customers. We 
adjusted the price for billing adjustments. We made adjustments for 
differences in packing in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 
773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. We also made adjustments, consistent with 
section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, for the following movement 
expenses: inland freight from the plant to the distribution warehouse, 
warehousing expense, and inland freight from the plant/warehouse to the 
customer. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in

[[Page 57219]]

circumstances of sale (``COS'') in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS 
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on home 
market sales (credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses 
(credit expenses).

Revocation

    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 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).
    According to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), 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) the continued 
application of the antidumping duty order is not otherwise necessary to 
offset dumping; and (3) the company has agreed to the immediate 
reinstatement of the order if the Department concludes that the 
company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less 
than NV.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), NHCI requested revocation of the 
antidumping duty order. The request was accompanied by certifications 
that NHCI had not sold the subject merchandise at less than NV during 
the current period of review and would not do so in the future. NHCI 
certified that it sold the subject merchandise to the United States in 
commercial quantities for a period of at least three consecutive years. 
NHCI also agreed to immediate reinstatement of the antidumping duty 
order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if 
the Department concludes that NHCI sold the subject merchandise at less 
than normal value subsequent to the revocation.
    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. After consideration of the information and 
arguments on the record of this review, we preliminarily determine that 
NHCI did not sell the subject merchandise in the United States in 
commercial quantities during the current review period. See the 
Memorandum from Team to Richard W. Moreland, ``Commercial Quantities,'' 
dated September 3, 2002, for a discussion of NHCI's selling activity. 
Because NHCI did not make sales in commercial quantities during at 
least one of the three years cited by NHCI to support its request for 
revocation, we do not need to examine whether NHCI made sales in 
commercial quantities in either of the other two years underlying its 
request for revocation. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that NHCI 
does not qualify for revocation of the order on pure magnesium pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii).

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that NHCI's 
margin for the period August 1, 2000, through July 31, 2001, is zero.
    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 42 
days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday 
thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those 
raised in the 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 35 days after the date of 
publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal 
briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument 
(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument 
with an electronic version included.
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of publication of these 
preliminary results.

Assessment Rates and Cash Deposit Requirements

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will 
determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we 
have calculated an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment 
rate for merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue 
appropriate assessment instructions directly to the Customs Service 
within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, we will 
direct the Customs Service to assess the resulting assessment rates 
against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each 
of the importer's/customer's entries during the review period.
    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of pure magnesium from Canada entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this 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 established in the final results of this 
administrative review (except no cash deposit will be required for the 
company if its weighted-average margin is de minimis, i.e., less than 
0.5 percent); (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or 
exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original less-
than-fair-value investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit 
will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final 
determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter 
received an individual rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered 
in this review, the previous review, or the original investigation, but 
the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established 
for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 
(4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in 
this or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 21 percent, 
the ``all others'' rate established in Pure Magnesium from Canada; 
Amendment of Final Determination of Sales At Less Than Fair Value and 
Order in Accordance With Decision on Remand (58 FR 62643, November 29, 
1993).

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary 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

[[Page 57220]]

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.
    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 3, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-22843 Filed 9-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P