[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71137-71140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-30306]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-873]


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Ferrovanadium from the People's Republic of China

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 29, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karine Gziryan or Howard Smith, AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4081, and (202) 482-5193, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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, as amended (the 
Act), by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's 
regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (April 
2002).

Final Determination

    We determine that ferrovanadium from the People's Republic of China 
(PRC) is being sold, or is likely to be sold, in the United States at 
less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Act. The 
estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the Final Determination 
of Investigation section of this notice.

Background

    On July 8, 2002, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary determination of sales at less-than-fair-
value in the antidumping duty investigation of ferrovanadium from the 
PRC. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Ferrovanadium from the 
People's Republic of China, 67 FR 45088 (July 8, 2002) (Preliminary 
Determination). Since the preliminary determination, the following 
events have occurred.

[[Page 71138]]

    On July 17, 2002, the respondent, Pangang Group International 
Economic and Trading Corporation (Pangang), reported for the first time 
that one of its affiliates for which it had not reported factors of 
production information had produced ferrovanadium during the period of 
investigation (POI). However, in its July 17 submission, Pangang noted 
that none of the ferrovanadium produced by this company was sold or 
exported to the United States during the POI. In response to Pangang's 
July 17 submission, on July 19, 2002, the Department issued a 
memorandum to the file noting that we require Pangang to report factors 
of production only from the factory or factories which produced 
ferrovanadium that was sold to customers in the United States during 
the POI.
    During July 2002, the Department conducted a verification of 
Pangang's sales and factors of production information. See Memorandum 
from Timothy P. Finn and Karine Gziryan to the File, ``Verification of 
Sales and Factors of Production Information Reported By Pangang Group 
International Economic & Trading Corporation,'' dated September 24, 
2002. On July 15, 2002, Pangang filed a request for a public hearing in 
this investigation. However, no hearing was held in this investigation 
because Pangang withdrew its request for a hearing on September 30, 
2002. Both the petitioners and Pangang filed surrogate value 
information and data on August 26, 2002.\1\ On September 5, 2002, 
Pangang filed information purportedly rebutting petitioners' August 26 
factor value submission. On September 24, 2002, the Department rejected 
Pangang's September 5 rebuttal submission as untimely filed factual 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in this case are the Ferroalloys Association 
Vanadium Committee (TFA Vanadium Committee) and its members: Bear 
Metallurgical Company, Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, Gulf 
Chemical & Metallurgical Corporation, U.S. Vanadium Corporation, and 
CS Metals of Louisiana LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties filed case and rebuttal briefs on October 1 and October 7, 
2002, respectively. Pursuant to the Department's instructions, the 
petitioners removed certain untimely filed factual information from 
their rebuttal brief and resubmitted it on November 12, 2002.

Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation covers all ferrovanadium regardless 
of grade, chemistry, form, shape, or size. Ferrovanadium is an alloy of 
iron and vanadium that is used chiefly as an additive in the 
manufacture of steel. The merchandise is commercially and 
scientifically identified as vanadium. It specifically excludes 
vanadium additives other than ferrovanadium, such as nitride vanadium, 
vanadium-aluminum master alloys, vanadium chemicals, vanadium oxides, 
vanadium waste and scrap, and vanadium-bearing raw materials such as 
slag, boiler residues and fly ash. Merchandise under the following 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 
2850.00.2000, 8112.40.3000, and 8112.40.6000 are specifically excluded. 
Ferrovanadium is classified under HTSUS item number 7202.92.00. 
Although the HTSUS item number is provided for convenience and Customs 
purposes, the Department's written description of the scope of this 
investigation remains dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is April 1, 2001, through September 30, 2001.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the 
Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Memorandum from Holly A. 
Kuga to Bernard T. Carreau, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Ferrovanadium from the People's 
Republic of China,'' dated concurrently with this notice (Decision 
Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a 
complete discussion of the issues raised in this investigation and the 
corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on 
file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main 
Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision 
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision 
Memorandum are identical in content.

Non-Market Economy

    The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) 
country in all its past antidumping investigations. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Honey from the People's 
Republic of China, 66 FR 50608 (October 4, 2001); Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Folding Gift 
Boxes from the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 58115 (November 20, 
2001). A designation as an NME country remains in effect until it is 
revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. The 
respondent in this investigation has not requested a revocation of the 
PRC's NME status. Therefore, we have continued to treat the PRC as a 
NME in this investigation. For further details, see the Preliminary 
Determination.

Separate Rates

    In our Preliminary Determination, we found that the only responding 
company, Pangang, met the criteria for the application of separate, 
company-specific antidumping duty rates. We have not received any other 
information since the preliminary determination which would warrant 
reconsideration of our separates rates determination with respect to 
this company. For a complete discussion of the Department's 
determination that the respondent is entitled to a separate rate, see 
the Preliminary Determination.

The PRC-Wide Rate

    In the Preliminary Determination, we found that the use of adverse 
facts available for the PRC-wide rate was appropriate for other 
exporters in the PRC based on our presumption that those respondents 
who failed to demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate constitute a 
single enterprise under common control by the Chinese government. The 
PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under 
investigation except for entries from Pangang.
    When analyzing the petition for purposes of the initiation, the 
Department reviewed all of the data upon which the petitioners relied 
in calculating the estimated dumping margin and determined that the 
margin in the petition was appropriately calculated and supported by 
adequate evidence in accordance with the statutory requirements for 
initiation. In order to corroborate the petition margin for purposes of 
using it as adverse facts available, we examined the price and cost 
information provided in the petition in the context of our preliminary 
determination. For further details, see Memorandum from Mark Manning to 
Holly A. Kuga, ``Corroboration of Secondary Information,'' dated June 
25, 2002. We received no comments on this decision and continue to find 
in this final determination that the rate contained in the petition, as 
recalculated, has probative value. Since we have received no comments 
regarding our decision to apply, as adverse facts available, the PRC-
wide rate to all entries of the merchandise under investigation except 
for entries from Pangang, we have

[[Page 71139]]

continued to apply this rate in the final determination. For further 
discussion, see Preliminary Determination.
    Since the preliminary determination, we have obtained new 
information regarding several surrogate values. In order to take into 
account the more recent information, we recalculated the petition 
margin using, where possible, revised surrogate values to value the 
petitioners' consumption rates. As a result of this recalculation, the 
PRC-wide rate is, for the final determination, 66.71 percent. See 
Memorandum from Mark Manning to the File, ``Corroboration of Secondary 
Information,'' dated November 20, 2002.

Surrogate Country

    For purposes of the final determination, we continue to find that 
South Africa remains the appropriate surrogate country for the PRC. We 
received comments from the petitioners in their brief, which are 
discussed in the accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. For 
further discussion and analysis regarding the surrogate country 
selection for the PRC, see the Preliminary Determination.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the 
information submitted by the respondent for use in our final 
determination. We used standard verification procedures including 
examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original 
source documents provided by the respondents. For changes from the 
Preliminary Determination as a result of verification, see the Changes 
Since the Preliminary Determination section below.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our findings at verification and on our analysis of the 
comments received, we have made adjustments to the calculation 
methodologies used in the preliminary determination. These adjustments 
are listed below and discussed in detail in the (1) Decision 
Memorandum, (2) Memorandum from the Team to the File, ``Final Factors 
of Production Valuation Memorandum,'' dated November 20, 2002, and (3) 
Memorandum from the Team to the File, ``Calculation Memorandum for the 
Final Determination,'' dated November 20, 2002.
1. We accepted all changes identified by Pangang in its July 19, 2002, 
submission and all minor corrections presented at verification. For our 
final calculations, we used the updated consumption rates and factors 
of production that incorporate the changes identified in the documents 
listed above, submitted by Pangang on August 28, 2002.
2. We reviewed the import data used in the preliminary determination to 
calculate surrogate values and removed from our calculations (1) data 
from NME countries, (2) data from countries with export subsidies 
(i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand), (3) data with 
aberrational per-unit values, and (4) data attributed to South Africa 
from the South African import statistics. Furthermore, where possible, 
we based our surrogate values on data from the months covering the POI.
3. We included in our calculation of normal value certain auxiliary 
materials found during verification.
4. We calculated the surrogate value for vanadium slag from South 
African export data contemporaneous with the POI obtained from the 
World Trade Atlas (WTA), rather than the South African import data 
reported by the United Nations which was used for the preliminary 
determination.
5. We recalculated the per-unit amount of vanadium slag consumed in the 
production process based on the actual chemical content of the 
material, rather than the theoretical content as was done in the 
preliminary determination.
6. We removed the ``soda'' factor from the production of FeV50 and 
FeV80 because we verified that soda was actually consumed in the 
production of the intermediate products V2O3 and V2O5.
7. We renamed the ``lime'' factor consumed in the production of V2O3 
and V2O5 to ``soda'' and valued this factor with a surrogate value 
derived from South African import statistics contemporaneous with the 
POI obtained from the WTA for the HTSUS category for disodium 
carbonate.
8. We granted Pangang an offset for its sales of V2O3 slag and V2O5 
slag and valued these by-products with the same surrogate value used to 
value vanadium slag. We adjusted the surrogate value to account for the 
difference in the vanadium content.
9. We granted Pangang an offset for its sales of aluminum oxide slag 
and valued this by-product with the same surrogate value used to value 
vanadium slag. We adjusted the surrogate value to account for the 
difference in the vanadium content.
10. We valued iron drums with South African import statistics 
contemporaneous with the POI obtained from the WTA, rather than with 
South African import data for 2000 reported by the United Nations, 
which was used in the preliminary determination.
11. We calculated separate surrogate values for wooden boxes and wooden 
pallets from the South African import statistics contemporaneous with 
the POI obtained from the WTA. We identified separate HTSUS categories 
for wooden boxes and wooden pallets rather than relying solely on the 
HTSUS category for wooden pallets as the surrogate value for both 
factors as was done in the preliminary determination.
12. We revised our calculation of the surrogate value for natural gas 
and used gas prices obtained from the International Energy Agency that 
are contemporaneous with the POI rather than prices from a period 
before the POI as was done in the preliminary determination.
13. We inflated surrogate values from periods before the POI with 
inflator factors derived from producer price index data from South 
Africa.
14. We revised the surrogate value for labor and are using the 2000 
wage rate for China rather than the 1999 wage rate as was done in the 
preliminary determination.
15. We calculated the surrogate value for sulfuric acid from South 
African export data contemporaneous with the POI obtained from the WTA 
rather than South African import data which was used for the 
preliminary determination.
16. We revised our calculation of freight costs for the factors of 
production to include the revised distances identified during 
verification.
17. We revised our calculation of the net U.S. price to deduct marine 
insurance where appropriate.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we are 
directing the Customs Service to continue suspension liquidation of 
entries of subject merchandise from the PRC that are entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 8, 2002 (the 
date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal 
Register). We will instruct the Customs Service to require a cash 
deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount 
by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price, as indicated in the 
chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain 
in effect until further notice.

Final Determination of Investigation

    We determine that the following weighted-average percentage margins 
exist for the period April 1, 2001, through September 30, 2001:

[[Page 71140]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Weighted-average margin
           Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pangang Group International Economic &                             13.03
 Trading Corporation......................
PRC-Wide Rate.............................                         66.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise 
except for entries from Pangang.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. As our final 
determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, 
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material 
injury to, the U.S. industry. If the ITC determines that material 
injury, or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding 
will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or 
canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the 
Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing Customs 
officials to assess antidumping duties on all imports of subject 
merchandise entered for consumption on or after the effective date of 
the suspension of liquidation.

Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order (APO)

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of 
their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary 
information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 
Timely 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.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act

    Dated: November 20, 2002.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix Issues in Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Whether Pangang Group International Economic & Trading 
Corporation (Pangang) Should Have Reported Factors of Production for 
All of its Production Facilities
Comment 2: Unreported Factors of Production
Comment 3: Whether Pangang Incorrectly Reported the Consumption 
Quantity of a Major Input
Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Continue to Use South Africa 
as the Surrogate Market Economy Country
Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Calculate the Surrogate Value 
for Vanadium Slag Using World Trade Atlas (WTA) Data or United Nations 
Commodity Trade Statistics (UNCTS) Data
Comment 6: Whether the Department Should Value Vanadium Slag Using 
Actual or Theoretical Consumption Quantities
Comment 7: Whether the Department Should Continue to Add Soda 
Consumption Quantities to the Reported Factors of Production
Comment 8: Whether the Department Should Value Soda as Sodium Hydroxide 
or Sodium Carbonate
Comment 9: Whether the Department Should Make a Concentration 
Adjustment to its Surrogate Value for Ammonium Sulphate
Comment 10: Whether the Department Should Allow an Offset for Aluminum 
Oxide Slag
Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Use Petitioners' Suggested 
Methodology to Value Pangang's Vanadium Slag Offset
Comment 12: Whether the Department Should Value the Consumption of Iron 
Drums Using WTA Data
Comment 13: Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value 
for Wooden Pallets and Wooden Boxes
Comment 14: Whether the Department Should Continue to Value Natural Gas 
Using IEA Data
Comment 15: Whether the Department Made a Ministerial Error in 
Calculating the Surrogate Value for Water
Comment 16: Whether the Department Should Use the Wholesale Price Index 
(WPI) or Producer Price Index (PPI) to Inflate Factor Values
Comment 17: Whether the Department Should Revise its Profit Ratio 
Calculation
Comment 18: Whether the Department Should Revise its Labor Rate 
Calculation
Comment 19: Whether the Surrogate Value for Sulfuric Acid is Based On 
Aberrational Data
Comment 20: Whether the Department Should Include in Normal Value the 
Value of the Factors of Production for Grinding Raw Vanadium Slag
Comment 21: Whether to Correct Certain Information Relating to Inland 
Freight
Comment 22: Whether to Deduct Marine Insurance in Calculating the Net 
Price for One U.S. Sale
[FR Doc. 02-30306 Filed 11-27-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S