[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 201 (Thursday, October 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59076-59080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-20573]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-570-923]


Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China: Notice 
of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 18, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Preeti Tolani, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-0395.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Initiation Of Investigation

    On September 21, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received a petition concerning imports of raw flexible magnets from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC) filed in proper form by Magnum 
Corporation (petitioner). On September 26 and 27, 2007, the Department 
issued requests for additional information and clarification of certain 
areas of the petition involving general issues as well as issues 
concerning the countervailing duty (CVD) allegations. On September 27, 
2007, the petitioner filed a supplement to the petition. See Petition 
for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Raw 
Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China and for the 
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Raw Flexible Magnets from Taiwan 
(September 27, 2007) (Supplement). Based on the Department's requests, 
on October 1 and 2, 2007, the petitioner filed responses to the 
Department's requests for additional information and clarification of 
the general issues as well as issues related to the CVD petition. See 
Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on 
Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China and for the 
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Raw Flexible Magnets from Taiwan 
(October 2, 2007) (General Issues Response 1); see also Petition for 
the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Raw Flexible 
Magnets from the People's Republic of China (October 2, 2007). On 
October 4, 9, and 10, 2007, the petitioner filed responses to the 
Department's requests for additional information and clarification of 
the PRC-specific portions of the petition. See Petition for the 
Imposition of Antidumping Duties and Countervailing Duties on Raw 
Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China (October 4, 2007) 
(PRC Response 1), Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties and 
Countervailing Duties on Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's 
Republic of China (October 9, 2007) (PRC Response 2), and Petition for 
the Imposition of Antidumping Duties and Countervailing Duties on Raw 
Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China (October 10, 2007) 
(PRC Response 3). On October 4 and 10, 2007, the Department requested 
additional information and clarification of certain areas of the 
general issues. On October 10 and 11, 2007, the petitioner filed 
responses to these requests. See Petition for the Imposition of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Raw Flexible Magnets from the 
People's Republic of China and for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties 
on Raw Flexible Magnets from Taiwan (October 10, 2007) (General Issues 
Response 2); see also Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's 
Republic of China and for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Raw 
Flexible Magnets from Taiwan (October 11, 2007) (General Issues 
Response 3). On October 9, 2007, Magnet Technology, a U.S. producer of 
raw flexible magnets, and an importer of

[[Page 59077]]

raw flexible magnets from the PRC, submitted a letter challenging the 
assertion made by the petitioner that it represents more than 50 
percent of the domestic production of raw flexible magnets. The 
petitioner rebutted this challenge to its industry support calculation 
on October 9, 2007.
    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that manufacturers, 
producers, or exporters of raw flexible magnets in the People's 
Republic of China (the PRC) received countervailable subsidies within 
the meaning of section 701 of the Act and that such imports are 
materially injuring an industry in the United States.
    The Department finds that the petitioner filed this petition on 
behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as 
defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and the petitioner has 
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD 
investigation that it is requesting the Department to initiate (see, 
infra, ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition'').

Period Of Investigation

    The anticipated period of investigation (POI) is calendar year 
2006. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).

Scope Of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain flexible 
magnet sheeting, strips, and profile shapes. Subject flexible magnet 
sheeting, strips, and profile shapes are bonded magnets composed (not 
necessarily exclusively) of (i) any one or combination of various 
flexible binders (such as polymers or co-polymers, or rubber) and (ii) 
a magnetic element, which may consist of a ferrite permanent magnet 
material (commonly, strontium or barium ferrite, or a combination of 
the two), a metal alloy (such as NdFeB or Alnico), any combination of 
the foregoing with each other or any other material, or any other 
material capable of being permanently magnetized. Subject flexible 
magnet sheeting, strips, and profile shapes are capable of being 
permanently magnetized, but may be imported in either magnetized or 
unmagnetized (including demagnetized) condition. Subject merchandise 
may be of any color and may or may not be laminated or bonded with 
paper, plastic or other material, which paper, plastic or other 
material may be of any composition and/or color. Subject merchandise 
may be uncoated or may be coated with an adhesive or any other coating 
or combination of coatings. Subject merchandise is within the scope of 
this investigation whether it is in rolls, coils, sheets, or pieces, 
and regardless of physical dimensions or packaging, including specialty 
packaging such as digital printer cartridges.
    Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation is 
retail printed flexible magnet sheeting, defined as flexible magnet 
sheeting (including individual magnets) that is laminated with paper, 
plastic or other material, if such paper, plastic or other material 
bears printed text and/or images, including but not limited to business 
cards, calendars, poetry, sports event schedules, business promotions, 
decorative motifs, and the like. This exclusion does not apply to such 
printed flexible magnet sheeting if the printing concerned consists of 
only: a trade mark or trade name; country of origin; border, stripes, 
or lines; any printing that is removed in the course of cutting and/or 
printing magnets for retail sale or other disposition from the flexible 
magnet sheeting; manufacturing or use instructions (e.g., ``print this 
side up,'' ``this side up,'' ``laminate here''); printing on adhesive 
backing (that is, material to be removed in order to expose adhesive 
for use, such as application of laminate) or on any other covering that 
is removed from the flexible magnet sheeting prior or subsequent to 
final printing and before use; non-permanent printing (that is, 
printing in a medium that facilitates easy removal, permitting the 
flexible magnet sheeting to be re-printed); printing on the back 
(magnetic) side; or any combination of the above.
    All products meeting the physical description of the subject 
merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this 
scope. The products subject to the investigation are currently 
classifiable principally under subheadings 8505.19.10 and 8505.19.20 of 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS 
subheadings are provided only for convenience and customs purposes, 
however, and the written description of the scope of this proceeding is 
dispositive.

Comments On Scope Of Investigation

    During our review of the petition, we discussed the scope with the 
petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products 
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 
discussed in the preamble to the regulations (Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), 
we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested 
parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of the 
publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import 
Administration's Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1870, U.S. Department 
of Commerce, 14\th\ Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, 
D.C 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the 
Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to 
consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary 
determination.

Consultations

    Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department 
invited representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of 
China (the GOC) for consultations with respect to the CVD petition. The 
Department held these consultations in Beijing, China, with 
representatives of the GOC on September 28, 2007. See the memorandum to 
the file, entitled, ``Consultations with Officials from the Government 
of People's Republic of China'' (September 28, 2007), a public document 
on file in the CRU.

Determination Of Industry Support For The Petition

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department 
shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which 
is

[[Page 59078]]

responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has been 
injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product 
in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC 
must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like 
product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes 
and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the 
Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and 
information. Although this may result in different definitions of the 
like product, such differences do not render the decision of either 
agency contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 
2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States, 
688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), 
cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989).
    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this subtitle.'' Thus, the reference point from which the 
domestic like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation,'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition).
    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not 
offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of 
the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted 
on the record, we have determined that raw flexible magnets constitute 
a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in 
terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic 
like-product analysis in these cases, see the Countervailing Duty 
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Raw Flexible Magnets from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC) (CVD Initiation Checklist) at 
Attachment II, on file in the CRU.
    Our review of the data provided in the Petition, Supplemental 
Responses, and other information readily available to the Department 
indicates that the petitioner has established industry support. Based 
on information provided in the Petition, we determine that the domestic 
producers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under 
section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers who 
support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total 
production of the domestic like product. The Petition did not establish 
support from domestic producers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, however, and the 
Department was required to take further action in order to evaluate 
industry support. See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act. In this case, 
the Department was able to rely on other information, in accordance 
with section 702(c)(4)(D)(i) of the Act, to determine industry support. 
See CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. The Department received 
opposition to the petition from a U.S. producer of the domestic like 
product, who is also an importer of raw flexible magnets from the PRC. 
See October 9, 2007, submission by Magnet Technology; see also CVD 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. Based on information provided in 
the Petition and other submissions, the domestic producers have met the 
statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) 
of the Act because the domestic producers who support the Petition 
account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the Petition. Accordingly, the Department 
determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic 
industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. See CVD 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
    The Department finds that the petitioner filed the petition on 
behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that 
it is requesting the Department to initiate. See CVD Initiation 
Checklist at Attachment II.

Injury Test

    Because the PRC is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the 
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act 
applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine 
whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially 
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations And Evidence Of Material Injury And Causation

    The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the 
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened 
with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject 
merchandise. The petitioner contends that the industry's injured 
condition is illustrated by reduced market share, lost sales, reduced 
production, reduced capacity, a lower capacity-utilization rate, fewer 
shipments, underselling, price depression or suppression, lost revenue, 
decline in financial performance, reduced employment, and an increase 
in import penetration. We have assessed the allegations and supporting 
evidence regarding material injury and causation, and we have 
determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate 
evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. See CVD 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment III.

Subsidy Allegations

    Section 702(b) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD 
proceeding whenever an interested party files a petition on behalf of 
an industry that (1) alleges the elements necessary for an imposition 
of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act and (2) is accompanied by 
information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting the 
allegations. The Department has examined the CVD petition on raw 
flexible magnets from the PRC and found that it complies with the 
requirements of section 702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance 
with section 702(b) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation 
to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of raw 
flexible magnets in the PRC receive countervailable subsidies. For a 
discussion of evidence supporting our initiation determination, see CVD 
Initiation Checklist.
    We are including in our investigation the following programs 
alleged in the petition to have provided countervailable subsidies to 
producers and exporters of the subject merchandise:
GOC Income Tax Programs
    1. Preferential Tax Policies for Foreign Investment Enterprises 
(FIEs) (Two Free, Three Half Program)
    2. Preferential Tax Policies for Export-Oriented FIEs
    3. Tax Subsidies to FIEs Based in Specially Designated Geographic 
Areas
    4. Tax Credits on Domestic Equipment Purchases
    5. Reinvestment Tax Benefits for FIEs
    6. Reduced Income Tax Rate For New High-Technology FIEs
    7. Reduced Income Tax Rate For Technology And Knowledge Intensive 
FIEs
Provincial and Local Income Tax Programs
    8. Anhui Province
    9. Zhejiang Province
    10. Shanghai Municipality

[[Page 59079]]

    11. Beijing Municipality
Indirect Tax Programs and Import Tariff Program
    12. Value Added Tax (VAT) and Import Duty Exemptions on Imported 
Equipment
    13. VAT Refunds on Exports
GOC Loan Program
    14. Preferential loan programs and interest rates in Guangdong 
Province
Grant Programs
    15. Key Technologies Renovation Project Fund
    16. Hengdian Group Grants
    17. GOC Payment of Legal Fees
    18. Provincial and Local Direct Grants in Guangdong Province
    19. Provincial and Local Direct Grants in Zhejiang Province
Provision of Goods for Less than Adequate Remuneration
    20. Provision of Land for Less than Adequate Remuneration for 
Zhejiang Province, specifically the Ningbo Export Processing Zone
    For further information explaining why the Department is 
investigating these programs, see CVD Initiation Checklist.
    We are not including in our investigation the following programs 
alleged to benefit producers and exporters of the subject merchandise 
in the PRC:
1. Preferential Loan Programs at the National Level
    The petitioner alleges that raw flexible magnet producers 
potentially benefit from preferential loans and interest rates by the 
GOC. The petitioner states that policy directives described in five-
year national-level policy plans and other government documents show 
that the PRC potentially provides or directs discounts on interest 
rates and loan guarantees through GOC-owned banks. There is 
insufficient evidence on the record to support that the GOC has a 
policy that favors the raw flexible magnet industry or that the magnet 
industry was a targeted or strategic industry for financing. In 
addition, the petitioner has not provided any information on whether 
raw flexible magnet producers received any direct loans. Therefore, we 
do not plan to investigate at the national level.
2. Provincial and Local Income Tax Programs in Guangdong Province
    The petitioner alleges that Guangdong Province has adopted its own 
``encouraged industry'' list and ``industry to be improved'' list. The 
petitioner alleges that the income tax for ``productive'' FIEs in 
Guangdong's special-economic zones is 15 percent, compared to the 
general rate of 30 percent. The petitioner also cites to Shenzhen City, 
which is located in Guangdong Province, as having preferential tax 
programs for FIEs located there. The petitioner failed to demonstrate 
that Guangdong Province provided preferential income tax programs. 
Therefore, we do not plan to investigate this program.
3. Provincial and Local Income Tax Programs in Fujian Province
    The petitioner alleges that Fujian Province has adopted its own 
``encouraged industry'' list that includes ``high-performance magnetic 
materials.'' The petitioner alleges that numerous policy documents 
state that local governments provide financial assistance to encouraged 
industries. The petitioner alleges that FIEs have enjoyed a 
preferential income tax rate of 15 percent for many years. The 
petitioner failed to demonstrate that Fujian Province provided 
preferential income tax programs. Therefore, we do not plan to 
investigate this program.
4. Provincial and Local Income Tax Programs in Jiangsu Province
    The petitioner alleges that Jiangsu Province has adopted its own 
``encouraged industry'' list that includes the magnetic materials 
sector. The petitioner alleges that FIEs have enjoyed a preferential 
income tax rate of 15 percent for many years. The petitioner failed to 
demonstrate that Jiangsu Province provided preferential income tax 
programs. Therefore, we do not plan to investigate this program.
5. Currency Valuation
    The petitioner alleges that the GOC tightly manages the exchange 
rate for the renminbi (RMB) instead of allowing it to be determined by 
market forces. According to the petitioner, the manipulation of the 
exchange rate has resulted in the undervaluation of the RMB in 
comparison to the U.S. dollar, thereby providing a financial benefit to 
PRC exporters. The petitioner has not sufficiently alleged the elements 
necessary for the imposition of a countervailing duty and did not 
support the allegation with reasonably available information. 
Therefore, we do not plan to investigate the currency valuation 
program.
6. Preferential Lifting of Certain Regulatory Obligations and 
Associated Reduction in Regulatory Compliance Costs
    The petitioner alleges that manufacturers of certain types of 
products can be exempted from a quality inspection carried out by the 
General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and 
Quarantine (AQSIQ), and that magnetic material has been listed as one 
such product. The petitioner has not sufficiently alleged the elements 
necessary for the imposition of a countervailing duty and did not 
support the allegation with reasonably available information. 
Therefore, we do not plan to investigate this program.
7. Refusals to License Out-of-Province Companies
    The petitioner alleges that many Chinese provincial administrations 
block the entrance of out-of-province firms into their market. Thus, 
the local protection leads to over supply, artificially reduced costs 
and the ability to cross-subsidize into export markets. The petitioner 
has not sufficiently alleged the elements necessary for the imposition 
of a countervailing duty and did not support the allegation with 
reasonably available information. Therefore, we do not plan to 
investigate this program.
8. Provision of Goods for Less than Adequate Remuneration at the 
National Level
    The petitioner alleges that the GOC sets the prices charged by 
electricity producers and that this allegedly below-market price is 
passed through to ``special industrial sectors,'' within the meaning of 
19 CFR 351.523, thereby reducing the producers' cost of inputs. The 
petitioner alleges the magnet industry is among the ``special 
industrial sectors'' designated by the GOC.
    The petitioner has not provided sufficient information 
demonstrating that producers of raw flexible magnets receive inputs at 
a reduced cost from the GOC or within the Lin'an Economic Development 
Zone. In addition, we have not addressed the petitioner's upstream 
allegation, as it is not relevant to this type of subsidy allegation.

Application Of The Countervailing Duty Law To The PRC

    The Department has treated the PRC as an non-market economy (NME) 
country in all past antidumping duty investigations and administrative 
reviews. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any

[[Page 59080]]

determination that a country is an NME country shall remain in effect 
until revoked by the administering authority. See e.g., Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 10 Unfinished, (TRBs) From the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2001-2002 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500, 
7500-1 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in TRBs from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review, 68 
FR 70488, 70488-89 (December 18, 2003).
    In the amended preliminary determination in the investigation of 
coated free sheet paper from the PRC, the Department preliminarily 
determined that the current nature of the PRC economy does not create 
obstacles to applying the necessary criteria in the CVD law. See Coated 
Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China: Amended 
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 72 FR 17484, 
17486 (April 9, 2007), and Memorandum for David M. Spooner, Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, ``Countervailing Duty 
Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from The People's Republic of 
China--Whether the Analytic Elements of the Georgetown Steel Opinion 
are Applicable to China's Present-day Economy'' (March 29, 2007), on 
file in the CRU. Therefore, because the petitioner has provided 
sufficient allegations and support of its allegations to meet the 
statutory criteria for initiating a CVD investigation of raw flexible 
magnets from the PRC, initiation of a CVD investigation is warranted in 
this case.

Distribution Of Copies Of The Petition

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of 
the public version of the petition has been provided to the GOC. To the 
extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public 
version of the petition to each exporter named in the petition, as 
provided for under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
702(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinatiion By The ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date 
on which it receives notice of this initiation, whether there is a 
reasonable indication that imports of subsidized raw flexible magnets 
from the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury 
to, a U.S. industry. See section 703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative ITC 
determination will result in the investigation being terminated; 
otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to statutory and 
regulatory time limits.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: October 11, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-20573 Filed 10-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S