[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 68 (Monday, April 10, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18067-18072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-5191]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-570-832


Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting 
the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure 
magnesium from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') covering the 
period May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005. We have preliminarily 
determined that sales have been made below normal value. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess 
antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the period 
of review (``POR''), for which the importer-specific assessment rates 
are above de minimis.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hua Lu or Eugene Degnan, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6478 and (202) 482-0414, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 2, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to 
request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure 
magnesium from the PRC for the period May 1, 2004, through April 30, 
2005. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 
70 FR 22631. On May 26, 2005, Tianjin Magnesium International, LTD 
(``TMI'') requested that the Department conduct a new shipper review 
and an administration review of the antidumping duty order covering 
pure magnesium from the PRC for entries of subject merchandise produced 
and exported by TMI. On June 28, 2005, the Department determined that 
TMI did not meet the requirements under which the Department can 
initiate a new shipper review. See Letter from Wendy Frankel to David 
A. Riggle (June 28, 2005). On June 30, 2005, the Department published 
in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of the antidumping duty 
administrative review of pure magnesium from the PRC for the period May 
1, 2004, through April 30, 2005, with respect to TMI. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 37749 
(``Initiation Notice''). On July 20, 2005, the Department issued its 
antidumping duty questionnaire to TMI.
    In August and September 2005, TMI submitted its questionnaire 
responses. The Department issued a letter seeking comments on surrogate 
country selection and surrogate value on August 9, 2005, to which TMI 
responded on September 28, 2005. On December 7, 2005, the Department 
selected India as the primary surrogate country. The Department issued 
a supplemental questionnaire to TMI in November 2005, to which TMI 
responded in December 2005. On December 19, 2005, TMI submitted 
additional surrogate value data. The Department issued a second 
supplemental questionnaire to TMI and received a response in February 
2006.
    On January 13, 2006, the Department published a notice in the 
Federal Register extending the time limit for the preliminary results 
of review from January 31, 2006, until April 3, 2006. See Pure 
Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit 
for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 71 FR 2188 (January 13, 2006).

Period of Review

    The POR is May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005.

Scope of Order

    Merchandise covered by this order is pure magnesium regardless of 
chemistry, form or size, unless expressly excluded from the scope of 
this order. Pure magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight 
primarily the element magnesium and produced by decomposing raw 
materials into magnesium metal. Pure primary magnesium is used 
primarily as a chemical in the aluminum alloying, desulfurization, and 
chemical reduction industries. In addition, pure magnesium is used as 
an input in producing magnesium alloy. Pure magnesium encompasses 
products (including, but not limited to, butt ends, stubs, crowns and 
crystals) with the following primary magnesium contents:
    (1) Products that contain at least 99.95[percnt] primary magnesium, 
by weight (generally referred to as ``ultra pure'' magnesium);
    (2) Products that contain less than 99.95[percnt] but not less than 
99.8[percnt] primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as 
``pure'' magnesium); and
    (3) Products that contain 50[percnt] or greater, but less than 
99.8[percnt] primary magnesium, by weight, and that do not conform to 
ASTM specifications for alloy magnesium (generally referred to as 
``off-specification pure'' magnesium).
    ``Off-specification pure'' magnesium is pure primary magnesium 
containing magnesium scrap, secondary magnesium, oxidized magnesium or 
impurities (whether or not intentionally added) that cause the primary 
magnesium content to fall below 99.8[percnt] by weight. It generally 
does not contain, individually or in combination, 1.5[percnt] or more, 
by weight, of the following alloying elements: aluminum,

[[Page 18068]]

manganese, zinc, silicon, thorium, zirconium and rare earths.
    Excluded from the scope of this order are alloy primary magnesium 
(that meets specifications for alloy magnesium), primary magnesium 
anodes, granular primary magnesium (including turnings, chips and 
powder) having a maximum physical dimension (i.e., length or diameter) 
of one inch or less, secondary magnesium (which has pure primary 
magnesium content of less than 50[percnt] by weight), and remelted 
magnesium whose pure primary magnesium content is less than 50[percnt] 
by weight.
    Pure magnesium products covered by this order are currently 
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) subheadings 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.20.00, 8104.30.00, 
8104.90.00, 3824.90.11, 3824.90.19 and 9817.00.90. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our 
written description of the scope is dispositive.

Surrogate Value Information

    On September 28, 2005, US Magnesium LLC (``Petitioner'') and TMI 
submitted comments on the appropriate surrogate values to be applied to 
the factors of production (``FOP'') in this review. On October 11, 
2005, Petitioner submitted comments rebutting certain factual 
information concerning valuation of the FOP information submitted by 
TMI. On December 19, 2005, TMI submitted additional surrogate value 
data. No other party to the proceeding provided comments on surrogate 
values during the course of this review.

Nonmarket-Economy-Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), any determination that a foreign country is an 
NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering 
authority. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 
2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 
7500 (February 14, 2003). None of the parties to this proceeding has 
contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated normal value 
(``NV'') in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to 
NME countries.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV on the NME 
producer's FOP, valued in a surrogate market-economy country or 
countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance 
with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOP, the Department 
shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOP in 
one or more market-economy countries that are: (1) at a level of 
economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the 
surrogate factor values used in this review are discussed under the 
``Normal Value'' section below and in the memorandum to the file from 
Hua Lu, Case Analyst, through Robert Bolling, Preliminary Results of 
Review of Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Factors 
of Production Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of 
Review, dated April 3, 2006 (``Factor Valuation Memorandum'').
    The Department has determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the 
Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of 
economic development. See Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen to Robert 
Bolling: Administrative Review of Pure Magnesium from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, 
dated July 15, 2005 (``Policy Memo''). Customarily, the Department 
selects an appropriate surrogate country from the Policy Memo based on 
the availability and reliability of data from the countries that are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. In this case, the 
Department found that India is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise. See Memorandum from Hua Lu through Robert Bolling to Wendy 
Frankel, Antidumping Administrative Review of Pure Magnesium from the 
People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country, dated 
December 7, 2005 (``Surrogate Country Memorandum'').
    The Department used India as the primary surrogate country, and, 
accordingly, has calculated NV using Indian prices to value the PRC 
producers' FOP, when available and appropriate. See Surrogate Country 
Memorandum and Factor Valuation Memorandum. The Department has obtained 
and relied upon publicly available information to value FOP.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results 
in an antidumping administrative review, interested parties may submit 
publicly available information to value factors of production within 20 
days after the date of publication of the preliminary results of 
review.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with 
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single 
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign 
all exporters of merchandise subject to administrative review in an NME 
country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
    The Department has considered whether each reviewed company based 
in the PRC is eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate-
rate test to determine whether the exporters are independent from 
government control does not consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-
type controls, e.g., export licenses, quotas, and minimum export 
prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. 
The test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and 
the output decision-making process at the individual firm level. See 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997), and 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Honey from 
the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 14725 (March 20, 1995).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department 
analyzes each exporting entity under a test arising out of the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as modified by 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 
from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) 
(``Silicon Carbide''). Under the separate-rates criteria, the 
Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent 
can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government 
control over export activities. See Silicon Carbide and Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from 
the People's

[[Page 18069]]

Republic of China, 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995).
    TMI provided company-specific separate-rates information and stated 
that it met the standards for the assignment of separate rates. 
Consequently, the Department analyzed whether TMI should receive a 
separate rate.

A. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; or (3) any other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From 
the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991).

B. Absence of De Facto Control

    As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain 
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented 
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255 (December 
31, 1998). Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined that 
an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether 
respondent is, in fact, subject to a degree of government control which 
would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The 
Department typically considers four factors in evaluating whether each 
respondent is subject to de facto government control of its export 
functions: (1) Whether the exporter sets its own export prices 
independent of the government and without the approval of a government 
authority; (2) whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and 
sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has 
autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the 
selection of its management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the 
proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding 
disposition of profits or financing of losses. See Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's 
Republic of China, 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995).

C. Analysis

    TMI placed on the record statements and documents to demonstrate 
absence of de jure control. In its questionnaire responses, TMI 
reported that it operated on market principles and was run 
independently and separately from the national, provincial, or local 
governments, including ministries, or offices of those governments. See 
TMI's August 10, 2005, Section A questionnaire response (``TMI AQR'') 
at 2. TMI submitted a copy of its business license and stated it is 
renewed upon expiration of the term by filing an application to renew 
as long as the company maintains its status, as per the initial 
certificate. TMI reported that the subject merchandise did not appear 
on any government list regarding export provisions or export licensing, 
and the subject merchandise is not subject to export quotas or export 
control licenses imposed by the PRC government. See TMI AQR at 5. TMI 
explained that the license imposed no limitations on the operations of 
TMI, nor created special entitlements to TMI. Furthermore, TMI stated 
that the Chamber of Commerce played no role in coordinating the export 
activities of TMI. See TMI AQR at 7. TMI submitted a copy of the Trade 
Law of the People's Republic of China to demonstrate that it had full 
rights to import and export. Based upon an examination of TMI's 
applicable laws and questionnaire responses, and TMI's business 
license, the Department preliminarily finds that TMI has demonstrated 
the absence of de jure government control over its export activities.
    In support of its assertion of an absence of de facto government 
control, TMI reported the following: (1) During the POR, TMI sold the 
subject merchandise directly to unaffiliated U.S. customers and 
negotiated prices directly with its customers, and these prices were 
not subject to review by, or guidance from, any government 
organization; (2) No organization outside of TMI reviewed, or approved, 
any aspect of its sales transactions; (3) TMI's owners selected the 
management, and no government authorities controlled the selection 
process, or had power to veto selections; and (4) TMI's profits may be 
retained in the company for further business purposes, or distributed 
to the shareholders. See TMI AQR at 9. Additionally, TMI explained that 
the owners of TMI decided how profits were used. Furthermore, TMI 
stated that it is not required to sell foreign currency earned (or some 
portion of it) to the government and that it may freely control and use 
the foreign currency it earned on sales of the subject merchandise to 
the United States by further investing the profit in the business, or 
distributing it to the owners. See TMI AQR at 10. The Department 
preliminarily finds that TMI has demonstrated the absence of de facto 
government control over its export activities.
    The evidence placed on the record of this administrative review by 
TMI demonstrates the absence of government control, both in law and in 
fact, with respect to TMI's exports of the merchandise under review. As 
a result, for the purposes of these preliminary results, the Department 
is granting a separate, company-specific rate to TMI, the exporter 
which shipped the subject merchandise to the United States during the 
POR.

Date of Sale

    19 CFR 351.401(i) states that ``in identifying the date of sale of 
the subject merchandise or foreign like product, the Secretary normally 
will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's 
records kept in the normal course of business. However, the Secretary 
may use a date other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is 
satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the 
exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.'' 19 CFR 
351.401(i); see also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 
132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-1093 (CIT 2001).
    After examining the questionnaire responses and the sales 
documentation that TMI placed on the record, we preliminarily determine 
that the invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale for TMI. We 
made this determination based on record evidence which demonstrates 
that TMI's invoices establish the material terms of sale. Thus, the 
record evidence does not rebut the presumption that the invoice date is 
the proper date of sale. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Saccharin From the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 
79054 (December 27, 2002).

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of pure magnesium to the United States 
by TMI were made at less than NV, we compared Export Price (``EP'') to 
NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections 
of this notice.

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at 
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) 
before the date of

[[Page 18070]]

importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise 
outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United 
States, as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act. In accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for TMI's U.S. sales because the 
subject merchandise was sold directly to the unaffiliated customers in 
the United States prior to importation and because CEP was not 
otherwise indicated.
    We compared NV to individual EP transactions, in accordance with 
section 777A(d)(2) of the Act.
    We calculated EP for TMI based on delivered prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the U.S. sales 
price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 
the Act. These included foreign inland freight from the plant to the 
port of exportation, and where applicable, ocean freight and marine 
insurance. No other adjustments to EP were reported or claimed. See 
memorandum from Hua Lu, Case Analyst, through Robert Bolling, Program 
Manager, to the file, Preliminary Results of Review of the Order on 
Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Program Analysis 
for the Preliminary Results of Review, dated April 3, 2006.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine NV using an FOP methodology if: (1) the merchandise is 
exported from a non-market economy country; and (2) the information 
does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-
country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. 
The Department will base NV on FOP because the presence of government 
controls on various aspects of these economies renders price 
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our 
normal methodologies.
    FOP includes: (1) hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw 
materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; 
and (4) representative capital costs. The Department used the FOP 
reported by respondent for materials, energy, labor, by-product, and 
packing.
    With regard to both the Indian import-based surrogate values and 
the market-economy input values, we have disregarded prices that the 
Department has reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. The 
Department has reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from 
Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. The 
Department has found in other proceedings that these countries maintain 
broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies; therefore, 
it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these 
countries may be subsidized. See China National Machinery Import & 
Export Corporation v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003), 
aff'd, 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Certain Helical Spring Lock 
Washers from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 66255 (December 17, 1996), at Comment 1; 
and Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic 
of China: Final Results of Administrative Review, 69 FR 61790 (October 
21, 2004). The Department is also guided by the legislative history not 
to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not 
subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 100-576 (1988) at 590. Rather, Congress 
instructed the Department to base its decision on information that is 
available to it at the time it is making its determination. Therefore, 
the Department has not used prices from these countries in calculating 
the Indian import-based surrogate values.

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department 
calculated NV based on FOP reported by respondent for the POR. To 
calculate NV, the reported per-unit factor quantities were multiplied 
by publicly available Indian surrogate values (except as noted below). 
In selecting the surrogate values, the Department considered the 
quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, 
the Department adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make 
them delivered prices. Specifically, the Department added to Indian 
import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of 
the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the 
distance from the nearest seaport to the factory, where appropriate 
(i.e., where the sales terms for the market-economy inputs were not 
delivered to the factory). This adjustment is in accordance with the 
decision of the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 
F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed description of all surrogate 
values used for TMI, see Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    The Department valued the following raw material inputs: 
ferrosilicon, dolomite, flux, fluorite and sulfur using the weighted-
average unit import values derived from the World Trade Atlas[reg] 
online (``Indian Import Statistics''), which are published by the 
Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics 
(``DGCI&S''), Ministry of Commerce of India, are reported in rupees, 
and are contemporaneous with the POR. See Factor Valuation Memorandum. 
Where the Department could not obtain publicly available information 
contemporaneous with the POR with which to value FOP, the Department 
adjusted the surrogate values using the Indian Wholesale Price Index 
(``WPI'') as published in the International Financial Statistics of the 
International Monetary Fund.
    To value electricity, the Department used values from the 
International Energy Agency Key World Energy Statistics (2003 edition). 
Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POR, the Department 
adjusted the rate for inflation. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    The Department valued steam coal using the 2003/2004 Tata Energy 
Research Institute's Energy Data Directory & Yearbook (``TERI Data''). 
The Department was able to determine, through its examination of the 
2003/2004 TERI Data, that: a) the annual TERI Data publication is 
complete and comprehensive because it covers all sales of all types of 
coal made by Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries, and b) the annual 
TERI Data publication prices are exclusive of duties and taxes. Because 
the value was not contemporaneous with the POR, the Department adjusted 
the rate for inflation. See Factor Valuation Memorandum at page 5.
    The Department used Indian transport information in order to value 
the inland freight cost of the raw materials. The Department determined 
the best available information for valuing truck freight to be from 
www.infreight.com. This source provides daily rates from six major 
points of origin to five destinations in India during the POR. The 
Department obtained a generally publicly available price quote on the 
first day of each month of the POR from each point of origin to each 
destination and averaged the data accordingly. See Factor Valuation 
Memorandum at page 6.
    The Department used two sources to calculate a surrogate value for 
domestic brokerage expenses. The Department averaged December 2003-
November 2004 data contained in Essar Steel's February 28, 2005, public 
version response submitted in the antidumping administrative review of 
hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India with February 2004-
January 2005 data

[[Page 18071]]

contained in Agro Dutch's May 24, 2005, public version response 
submitted in the antidumping investigation of certain preserved 
mushrooms from India. The brokerage expense data reported by Essar 
Steel and Agro Dutch in their public versions is ranged data. The 
Department first derived an average per-unit amount from the source. 
Then, the Department averaged the two per-unit amounts to derive an 
overall average rate for the POR. See Factor Valuation Memorandum at 
page 7.
    To value marine insurance, the Department obtained a generally 
publicly available price quote from http://www.rjgconsultants.com/insurance.html, a market-economy provider of marine insurance. See 
Factor Valuation Memorandum at page 7.
    To value international freight, the Department obtained a generally 
publicly available price quote from http://www.maersksealand.com/HomePage/appmanager/ HomePage/appmanager/, a market-economy provider of international 
freight services. See Factor Valuation Memorandum at page 7.
    For direct labor, indirect labor, selling, general and 
administrative expenses (``SG&A'') labor, and packing labor, consistent 
with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), the Department used the PRC regression-based 
wage rate as reported on the Import Administration's home page, Import 
Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in November 
2005, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. The source of these 
wage rate data on the Import Administration's web site is the Yearbook 
of Labour Statistics 2003, ILO, (Geneva: 2003), Chapter 5B: Wages in 
Manufacturing. The years of the reported wage rates range from 1996 to 
2003. Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the 
labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, the 
Department has applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types 
of labor reported by each respondent.
    To value factory overhead, depreciation, SG&A and profit, the 
Department used the 2004 audited financial statements for an Indian 
producer of aluminum, Hindalco Industries Limited (``Hindalco''). See 
Factor Valuation Memorandum at page 6 for a full discussion of the 
calculation of these ratios from Hindalco's financial statements.
    TMI reported that it recovered cement clinker from the production 
of pure magnesium for resale. The Department offset TMI's NV by the 
amount of cement clinker that TMI sold. See Factor Valuation Memorandum 
at page 6 for a complete discussion of this issue.
    Finally, the Department used Indian Import Statistics to value 
material inputs for packing which, for TMI, are steel bands and plastic 
bags. The Department used Indian Import Statistics data for the POR for 
packing materials. See Factor Valuation Memorandum at page 6.

Currency Conversion

    The Department made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in 
accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates 
in effect as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank on the dates of the 
U.S. sales.

Weighted-Average Dumping Margins

    The weighted-average dumping margin for TMI is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
               Exporter/Manufacturer                 Margin (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TMI................................................                89.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    The Department will disclose calculations performed for these 
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any 
interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of 
these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case 
briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of 
publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, 
limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no 
later than 35 days after the date of publication. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d). The Department requests that parties submitting written 
comments also provide the Department with an additional copy of those 
comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of 
this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of 
publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 
The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly 
to CBP upon completion of this review. If these preliminary results are 
adopted in our final results of review, the Department will direct CBP 
to assess the resulting rate against the entered customs value for the 
subject merchandise on each importer's/customer's entries during the 
POR. Additionally, the Department will instruct CBP to assess 
antidumping duties for rescinded companies at rates equal to the cash 
deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, 
or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.212(c)(1)(I).

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit 
rate for the reviewed company will be the rate listed in the final 
results of review (except where the rate for a particular company is de 
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required 
for that company); (2) for previously investigated companies not listed 
above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific 
rate published for the most recent period; (3) the cash deposit rate 
for all other PRC exporters will be 108.26 percent, the current PRC-
wide rate; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all non-PRC exporters will 
be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. 
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

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 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.
    The Department is issuing and publishing these preliminary results 
of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the 
Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b).


[[Page 18072]]


    Dated: April 3, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-5191 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S