[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20817-20824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9178]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-896]


Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of the 2008-2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on magnesium metal 
from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''), covering the period 
April 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009. This administrative review 
covers one exporter of the subject merchandise.
    We have preliminarily determined that the respondent in this 
administrative review has not made sales in the United States at prices 
below normal value during the period of review (``POR''). If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to liquidate 
entries of subject merchandise during the POR without regard to 
antidumping duties.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each 
argument a summary of the argument. We intend to issue the final 
results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this 
notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act'').

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 21, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita 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-
4243 and (202) 482-0414, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 12, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on magnesium metal from the PRC.\1\ On April 
1, 2009,

[[Page 20818]]

the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of 
opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on magnesium metal from the PRC for the period April 1, 2008, 
through March 31, 2009.\2\ On April 27, 2009, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(b)(2), Tianjin Magnesium International, Co. Ltd. (``TMI''), a 
foreign exporter of the subject merchandise, requested the Department 
to review its sales of subject merchandise. On May 30, 2009, US 
Magnesium LLC (``Petitioner'') also requested that the Department 
conduct an administrative review of TMI's exports of subject 
merchandise. On May 29, 2009, the Department initiated an 
administrative review of the order on magnesium metal from the PRC for 
the POR with respect to TMI.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium From 
the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation and Ukraine; 
Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Pure Magnesium from the 
Russian Federation, 60 FR 25691 (May 12, 1995).
    \2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative 
Review, 74 FR 14771 (April 1, 2009).
    \3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 74 FR 25711 (May 29, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 10, 2009, the Department issued its antidumping duty 
questionnaire to TMI. On July 6, 2009, TMI submitted its Section A 
questionnaire response (``TMI's AQR''). On August 3, 2009, TMI 
submitted its Section C and D questionnaire responses (``TMI's CQR'' 
and ``TMI's DQR,'' respectively). On September 9, 2009, Petitioner 
requested that the Department verify TMI. On October 10, 2009, 
Petitioner submitted comments on TMI's AQR, CQR, and DQR. On December 
23, 2009, the Department issued its first supplemental questionnaire to 
TMI. On January 26, 2010, TMI submitted its response to the 
Department's sections A, C and D supplemental questionnaire (``TMI's 
1st SQR''). On March 19, 2010, the Department issued the second 
supplemental questionnaire to TMI and the Department received a 
response on April 6, 2010 (``TMI's 2nd SQR'').
    On October 13, 2009, the Department requested that Import 
Administration's Office of Policy provide a list of surrogate countries 
for this review.\4\ On October 13, 2009, the Office of Policy issued 
its list of surrogate countries.\5\ On October 16, 2009, the Department 
issued a letter to interested parties seeking comments on surrogate 
country selection and surrogate values. On October 30, 2009, Petitioner 
and TMI submitted comments on surrogate country selection 
(``Petitioner's Surrogate Country Selection Letter'' and ``TMI's 
Surrogate Country Selection Letter''). On November 12, 2009, Petitioner 
and TMI submitted surrogate value comments (``Petitioner's Surrogate 
Value Comments'' and ``TMI's Surrogate Value Comments,'' respectively). 
On November 25, 2009, Petitioner submitted rebuttal surrogate value 
comments (``Petitioner's Rebuttal Surrogate Value Comments''). On 
November 27, 2009, TMI submitted rebuttal surrogate value comments 
(``TMI's Rebuttal Surrogate Value Comments'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Memorandum to Kelly Parkhill, Acting Director, Office of 
Policy, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Magnesium Metal 
from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate-Country Selection,'' 
dated September 15, 2009.
    \5\ See Memorandum from Kelly Parkhill, Acting Director, Office 
of Policy, ``Request for a list of Surrogate Countries for an 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Magnesium 
Metal (``Magnesium Metal'') from the People's Republic of China, 
dated October 13, 2009 (``Surrogate Country List'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 23, 2009, the Department extended the time period for 
completion of the preliminary results of this review by 75 days until 
March 16, 2010.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China: 
Extension of Time for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 68227 (December 23, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 2, 2010, the Department requested that CBP provide 
entry documentation for certain transactions during the POR.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Memorandum to Alice Buchanan, Acting Director, AD/CVD/
Revenue Policy & Programs, Office of International Trade , U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection, ``Request for U.S. Entry Documents - 
Magnesium Metal from People's Republic of China - A-570-896,'' dated 
February 18, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration, the Department has exercised its discretion 
to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal 
Government from February 5, through February 12, 2010. Thus, all 
deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by seven 
days. As a result, the revised deadline for the preliminary results of 
this review became March 23, 2010.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Memorandum to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for 
Import Administration, regarding ``Tolling of Administrative 
Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During the Recent 
Snowstorm,'' dated February 12, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 3, 2010, Petitioner requested the Department to extend the 
deadline for the preliminary results of review by an additional 45 days 
until May 7, 2010. On March 16, 2010, the Department extended the 
deadline for the preliminary results an additional 21 days until April 
13, 2010.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China: 
Extension of Time for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 13489 (March 22, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Review

    The POR is April 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009.

Scope of Order

    The product covered by this antidumping duty order is magnesium 
metal, which includes primary and secondary alloy magnesium metal, 
regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape, or size. 
Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the 
element magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw 
materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by 
recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium 
covered by this order includes blends of primary and secondary 
magnesium.
    The subject merchandise includes the following alloy magnesium 
metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium including, 
without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, 
and other shapes, and magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined 
into raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, briquettes, and other 
shapes: products that contain 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 
percent, magnesium, by weight, and that have been entered into the 
United States as conforming to an ``ASTM Specification for Magnesium 
Alloy''\10\ and thus are outside the scope of the existing antidumping 
orders on magnesium from the PRC (generally referred to as ``alloy'' 
magnesium).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The meaning of this term is the same as that used by the 
American Society for Testing and Materials in its Annual Book of 
ASTM Standards: Volume 01.02 Aluminum and Magnesium Alloys.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The scope of this order excludes: (1) all forms of pure magnesium, 
including chemical combinations of magnesium and other material(s) in 
which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less 
that 99.8 percent, by weight, that do not conform to an ``ASTM 
Specification for Magnesium Alloy''\11\; (2) magnesium that is in 
liquid or molten form; and (3) mixtures containing 90 percent or less 
magnesium in granular or powder form

[[Page 20819]]

by weight and one or more of certain non-magnesium granular materials 
to make magnesium-based reagent mixtures, including lime, calcium 
metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon, 
slag coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite, feldspar, alumina 
(Al203), calcium aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, 
silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly ash, 
magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and 
colemanite.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This material is already covered by existing antidumping 
orders. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium from 
the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation and Ukraine; 
Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Pure Magnesium from the 
Russian Federation, 60 FR 25691 (May 12, 1995); and Antidumping Duty 
Order: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from the People's Republic of 
China, 66 FR 57936 (Nov. 19, 2001).
    \12\ This third exclusion for magnesium-based reagent mixtures 
is based on the exclusion for reagent mixtures in the 2000-2001 
investigations of magnesium from China, Israel, and Russia. See 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium 
in Granular Form From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 49345 
(September 27, 2001); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Pure Magnesium From Israel, 66 FR 49349 (September 27, 2001); 
Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Pure 
Magnesium From the Russian Federation, 66 FR 49347 (September 27, 
2001). These mixtures are not magnesium alloys, because they are not 
chemically combined in liquid form and cast into the same ingot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under items 
8104.19.00, and 8104.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS items are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise is dispositive.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy 
(``NME'') country in all past antidumping duty investigations and 
administrative reviews and continues to do so in this case.\13\ The 
Department has previously examined the PRC's market economy status and 
determined that NME status should continue for the PRC.\14\ In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination 
that a foreign country is a NME country shall remain in effect until 
revoked by the administering authority.\15\ No interested party 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 771(18)(C) of the Act; see, e.g., Pure Magnesium from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 76336 (December 16, 2008); and 
Frontseating Service Valves From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final 
Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March 
13, 2009).
    \14\ See Memorandum from the Office of Policy to David M. 
Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, The People's 
Republic of China (PRC) Status as a Non-Market Economy (NME), dated 
May 15, 2006. This document is available online at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nme-status/prc-nme-status-memo.pdf.
    \15\ See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 factors of production (``FOPs''). The Act further instructs 
that valuation of the FOPs shall be based on the best available 
information in a surrogate market economy country or countries 
considered to be appropriate by the Department.\16\ When valuing the 
FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices 
or costs of FOPs 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.\17\ 
Further, the Department normally values all FOPs in a single surrogate 
country.\18\ The sources of surrogate value are discussed under the 
``Normal Value'' section below and in the Factor Valuation Memorandum, 
which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the main 
Department building.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See section 773(c)(1) of the Act.
    \17\ See section 773(c)(4) of the Act.
    \18\ See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2).
    \19\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Preliminary Results of the 
2008-2009Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Pure 
Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value 
Memorandum,'' dated April 13, 2010 (``Factor Valuation 
Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In examining which country to select as its primary surrogate 
country for this proceeding, the Department first determined that 
India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Colombia, Thailand, and Peru are 
countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development.\20\ 
In Petitioner's Surrogate Country Selection Letter, Petitioner contends 
that the Department should continue to select India as the surrogate 
country for this administrative review, as it has in previous segments 
of this proceeding. In addition, Petitioner maintains that to the best 
of its knowledge, there are no magnesium producers currently operating 
in any of the six countries identified in the Surrogate Country 
Memorandum. Petitioner states that Southern Magnesium & Chemicals Ltd. 
(``Southern Magnesium''), which is located in India, has either 
downsized or ceased its magnesium production operations.\21\ Petitioner 
argues, however, that India is a significant producer of aluminum and 
the Department has ``routinely determined that aluminum is a product 
comparable to magnesium production.''\22\ Petitioner states that India 
has five major producers of aluminum.\23\ Additionally, Petitioner 
contends that the Department determined that zinc is the only other 
merchandise that the Department has found to be comparable to 
magnesium,\24\ and India is a significant producer of zinc.\25\ 
Finally, Petitioner contends that India is the best available surrogate 
country for this proceeding because India is known to have complete, 
up-to-date, and reliable publicly available information for all raw 
material factors of production. Petitioner states that India is the 
only potential surrogate country that can be a source for surrogate 
financial ratios because India is a significant producer of aluminum 
and zinc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Surrogate Country List.
    \21\ See 2002 Annual Report of Southern Magnesium, contained in 
Petitioner's Surrogate Country Selection Letter, at 3 and Exhibit 2.
    \22\ See Petitioner's Surrogate Country Selection Letter, at 4, 
citing Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 76336, 
(December 16, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 6.D.
    \23\ See Petitioner's Surrogate Country Selection Letter, at 4, 
citing The Mineral Industry of India - 2007, at Table 2, U.S. 
Geological Survey (``USGS''), contained in Exhibit 3; also, citing 
USGS Minerals Yearbook, Zinc-2006 at Table 16, contained in Exhibit 
4.
    \24\ See Petitioner's Surrogate Country Selection Letter, at 5, 
citing Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair 
Value: Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation, 66 FR 49347 
(September 27, 2001), at Comment 1.
    \25\ See Petitioner's Surrogate Country Selection Letter, at 5, 
citing USGS Minerals Yearbook, Zinc - 2007, at Table 2, contained in 
Exhibit 3. See also USGS 2007 Minerals Yearbook, Zinc (Advance 
Release), at Table 13, contained in Exhibit 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In TMI's Surrogate Country Selection Letter, TMI contends that 
India is the most appropriate surrogate country for the PRC in this 
review.\26\ TMI reiterates the reasons that the Department articulated 
in its determination to use India as the appropriate surrogate country 
in the 2006-2007 administrative review of magnesium metal from the PRC: 
(1) India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; (2) 
India is at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC; and 
(3) the Department has reliable data to use from India.\27\ Both 
Petitioner and TMI submitted Indian sourced data to value FOPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See TMI's Surrogate Country Selection Letter at 1.
    \27\ See id. at 3 citing, Magnesium Metal from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 73 FR 40293, 40294 (July 14, 2008) and Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical 
Circumstances: Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China, 
70 FR 9037, 9038 (February 24, 2005).

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

[[Page 20820]]

    After evaluating interested parties' comments, the Department has 
determined that India is the appropriate surrogate country to use in 
this review in accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act. The 
Department based its decision on the following facts: (1) India is at a 
level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC; (2) India 
is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, i.e., aluminum and 
zinc; and (3) India provides the best opportunity to use quality, 
publicly available data to value the FOPs. All the data submitted by 
both Petitioner and TMI for our consideration as potential surrogate 
values and surrogate financial ratios are sourced from India. Finally, 
on the record of this review, we have usable surrogate value data 
(including financial data) from India, but no such surrogate data from 
any other potential surrogate country.
    Therefore, because India best represents the experience of 
producers of comparable merchandise operating in a surrogate country, 
we have selected India as the surrogate country and, accordingly, have 
calculated NV using Indian prices to value TMI's FOPs, when available 
and appropriate. We have obtained and relied upon publicly available 
information wherever possible.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may 
submit publicly available information to value the FOPs within 20 days 
after the date of publication of the preliminary determination.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final 
determination of this review, interested parties may submit factual 
information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information 
submitted by an interested party less than ten days before, on, or 
after the applicable deadline for submission of such factual 
information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) 
permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or 
corrects information recently placed on the record. The Department 
generally cannot accept the submission of additional, previously 
absent-from-the-record alternative SV information pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final 
Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of subject merchandise 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. Exporters can demonstrate this 
independence through the absence of both de jure and de facto 
governmental control over export activities. The Department analyzes 
each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from 
the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair value: 
Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 
1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed in Notice of 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''). However, if the Department determines that a company is 
wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate 
rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent 
from government control.

Separate Rate Recipients

    TMI is the only respondent in this administrative review. TMI 
reported that it is a wholly Chinese-owned company. Therefore, the 
Department must analyze whether it can demonstrate the absence of both 
de jure and de facto government control over export activities.

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; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The evidence provided by TMI supports a preliminary finding of de 
jure absence of government control based on the following: (1) an 
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with its business and 
export licenses; (2) applicable legislative enactments decentralizing 
control of companies; and (3) formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of companies.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China, 
contained in TMI's AQR, at Exhibit A-2; see also Regulations of the 
People's Republic of China on Company Registration contained in 
TMI's AQR at Exhibit A-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of 
its export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a government agency; (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 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.\31\ The Department has determined that an analysis 
of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, 
in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would 
preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; see also Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl 
Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 
8, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The evidence provided by TMI supports a preliminary finding of de 
facto absence of government control based on the following: (1) the 
absence of evidence that the export prices are set by or are subject to 
the approval of a government agency;\32\ (2) the respondent has 
authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements;\33\ (3) 
the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions 
regarding the selection of management;\34\ and (4) the respondent 
retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent 
decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See TMI's AQR, at 7; see also the contract and the purchase 
order between TMI and a U.S. Customer contained in TMI's AQR at 
Exhibit A-6. See also TMI's 1st SQR at 17-18 and Exhibit 8.
    \33\ See the purchase agreements between TMI and its producers 
contained in TMI's AQR at Exhibit 8 and TMI's 1st SQR at Exhibit 8.
    \34\ See TMI's AQR at 8-9.
    \35\ See TMI's AQR at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this review by TMI 
demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government control with 
respect to TMI's exports of the merchandise under review, in accordance 
with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. 
Accordingly, we have determined that TMI has demonstrated its 
eligibility for a separate rate.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of magnesium metal to the United States 
by TMI were made at NV, we compared Export Price (``EP'') to NV, as 
described

[[Page 20821]]

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 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 have 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 Constructed Export Price was not otherwise warranted.
    We have based the EP on delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers 
in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the 
Act, we have made deductions from the starting price for movement 
expenses, including expenses for foreign inland freight from the plant 
to the port of exportation, domestic brokerage and handling, 
international freight, marine insurance, brokerage and handling 
expenses incurred in the U.S. and U.S. customs duty. No other 
adjustments to EP were reported or claimed by TMI.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Memorandum ``Analysis for the Preliminary Results of 
Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Tianjin 
Magnesium International, Co. Ltd.'' (``TMI's Analysis Memorandum''), 
dated April 13, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, the Department shall 
determine NV using an FOP methodology if the the merchandise is 
exported from an NME country and the Department finds that the 
available 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. When determining NV in an NME context, the 
Department will base NV on FOPs 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. The Department's questionnaire requires that TMI 
provide information regarding the weighted-average FOPs across all of 
the company's plants that produce the subject merchandise, not just the 
FOPs from a single plant. This methodology ensures that the 
Department's calculations are as accurate as possible.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe 
Fittings From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October 
28, 2003), and accompanying Issue and Decision Memorandum at Comment 
19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will 
normally use publicly available information to find an appropriate 
surrogate value to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input 
from a market economy and pays for it in market-economy currency, the 
Department may value the factor using the actual price paid for the 
input.\38\ TMI reported that it did not purchase any inputs from market 
economy suppliers for the production of the subject merchandise.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof Assembly 
Components, Div. of Ill. Tool Works, Inc. v. United States, 268 F. 
3d 1376, 1382-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming the Department's use 
of market-based prices to value certain FOPs).
    \39\ See TMI's DQR at D-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We calculated NV based on FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(3) 
and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). The FOPs include but are not 
limited to: (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 FOPs reported 
by TMI for materials, energy, labor, by-products, and packing.
    TMI stated that it had no by-products or co-products other than 
magnesium waste and magnesium alloy waste, which are generated during 
the production of subject merchandise and reintroduced into the 
production process.\40\ However, for these preliminary results, TMI did 
not request, and we did not grant a by-product offset in our 
calculation of NV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Id. at D-13-14 and D-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department 
calculated NV based on FOPs reported by TMI for the POR. To calculate 
NV, the Department multiplied the reported per-unit factor consumption 
quantities by publicly available Indian surrogate values. In selecting 
the surrogate values, the Department considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. The Department adjusted 
input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices, 
as appropriate. 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 of production. This 
adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 
F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all 
surrogate values used to value TMI's reported FOPs can be found in the 
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    The Department calculated surrogate values for the majority of 
reported FOPs purchased from NME sources using the contemporaneous, 
weighted-average unit import value derived from the Monthly Statistics 
of the Foreign Trade of India, as published by the Directorate General 
of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce 
and Industry, Government of India in the World Trade Atlas, available 
at http://www.gtis.com/wta.htm (``WTA Indian Import Statistics'').\41\ 
WTA Indian Import Statistics were reported in U.S. dollars\42\ and are 
contemporaneous with the POR to calculate surrogate values for TMI's 
material inputs. In selecting the best available information for 
valuing FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the 
Department's practice is to select, to the extent practicable, 
surrogate values which are non-export average values, most 
contemporaneous with the period ofreview, product-specific, and tax-
exclusive.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum at Attachment 1.
    \42\ The import data obtained from the WTA as published by 
Global Trade Information Services (``GTIS''), began identifying the 
original reporting currency for India as the U.S. dollar. See 
Memorandum to the file, ``Indian Import Statistics Currency 
Denomination in the World Trade Atlas,'' dated March 23, 2010.
    \43\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical 
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain 
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 
FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In those instances where the Department could not obtain publicly 
available information contemporaneous with the POR with which to value 
FOPs, 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.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum at Attachment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, with regard to Indian import-based surrogate values, 
we have disregarded prices that we have reason to believe or suspect 
may be subsidized, such as those from Indonesia, South

[[Page 20822]]

Korea, and Thailand. We have found in other proceedings that these 
countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export 
subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to 
all markets from these countries may be subsidized.\45\ We are also 
guided by the statute's legislative history that explains that it is 
not necessary to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such 
prices are not subsidized.\46\ Rather, the Department was instructed by 
Congress to base its decision on information that is available to it at 
the time it is making its determination. Therefore, we have not used 
prices from these countries in calculating the Indian import-based 
surrogate values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\  See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant To Court 
Remand, dated February 25, 2010, Jinan Yipin Corp., Ltd. v. United 
States, 637 F.Supp.2d 1183 (CIT 2009). See also Certain Frozen Fish 
Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results 
and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 54007, 54011 (September 13, 2005), 
unchanged in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam: Final Results of the First Administrative Review, 71 FR 
14170 (March 21, 2006); and China Nat'l Mach. Import & Export Corp. 
v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003), affirmed 104 Fed. 
Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
    \46\ See H.R. Rep. No. 100-576 at 590 (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department used WTA Indian Import Statistics to calculate 
surrogate values for raw materials, including magnesium metal scrap, 
magnesium alloy scrap, unalloyed aluminum, alloyed aluminum, flux, 
sulphur, and zinc, as well as for packing materials, including steel 
bands and plastic bags.
    We valued flux No.2, which consists of magnesium chloride, 
potassium chloride and sodium chloride, using data from Chemical 
Weekly. We consider both Chemical Weekly and WTA Indian Import 
Statistics to be reliable sources, and as such, the Department has used 
them in past cases to value chemical component inputs. In the instant 
case, however, we have determined that Chemical Weekly is the best 
information available for valuing flux because the quantity of the 
total imports of magnesium chloride in the WTA Indian Import Statistics 
is very small and thus does not appear to represent commercial 
quantities.
    We valued brokerage and handling using a simple average of the 
brokerage and handling costs that were reported in public submissions 
that were filed in three antidumping duty cases. Specifically, we 
averaged the public brokerage and handling expenses reported by Navneet 
Publications (India) Ltd. in the 2007-2008 administrative review of 
certain lined paper products from India, Essar Steel Limited in the 
2006-2007 antidumping duty administrative review of hot-rolled carbon 
steel flat products from India, and Himalya International Ltd. in the 
2005-2006 administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from 
India. We inflated the brokerage and handling rates using the 
appropriate WPI inflator.
    For direct labor, indirect labor, and packing labor, consistent 
with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), the Department used the PRC regression-based 
wage rate as reported on Import Administration's website.\47\ 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 
TMI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See ``Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries,'' revised 
in December 2009, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/07wages/final/final-2009-2007-wages.html. The source of these wage-rate data 
is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2007, ILO (Geneva: 2008), 
Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. The years of the reported wage 
rates are from 2006 and 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued electricity using the updated electricity price data for 
small, medium, and large industries, as published by the Central 
Electricity Authority, an administrative body of the Government of 
India, in its publication titled Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average 
Rates of Electricity Supply in India, dated March 2008. These 
electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly-available 
information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to small, 
medium, and large industries in India. We did not inflate this value 
because utility rates represent current rates, as indicated by the 
effective dates listed for each of the rates provided.
    We valued truck freight expenses using an Indian per-unit average 
rate calculated from data on the following Web site: http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this 
Web site contains inland freight truck rates between many large Indian 
cities. We did not inflate this rate since it is iscontemporaneous with 
the POR.
    We valued marine insurance using the price quote retrieved from RJG 
Consultants, online at http://www.rjgconsultants.com/163.html, a 
market-economy provider of marine insurance. We did not inflate this 
rate since it is iscontemporaneous with the POR.
    To value steam coal, we used steam coal prices from the December 
12, 2007, CIL's Coal Pricing Circular. See CIL: S&M: GM(F): Pricing 
1124, dated 12 December 2007).\48\ Since TMI reports using non-coking 
coal with a useful heat value (``UHV'') of 5500 kcal/kg,\49\ we 
calculated the surrogate value for steam coal by averaging the prices 
of grades B and C steam coal from the December 12, 2007, CIL's Coal 
Pricing Circular.\50\ We did not inflate this value to the current POR 
because the steam coal rates represent the rates that were in effect 
until October 16, 2009,\51\ and are therefore contemporaneous with the 
POR. Finally, we have applied an additional fixed surcharge of 165 
rupees (``Rs.'')/metric ton (``MT'') to our calculation of the average 
of B and C grades of steam coal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    \49\ See TMI's DQR at D-12. See also Annexure X of CIL's Coal 
Pricing Circular in the Factor Valuation Memorandum (identifying the 
range of kcal/kg in each grade of coal).
    \50\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    \51\ See http://www.coalindia.in/Business.aspx?tab=2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19 CRF 351.408(c)(4) directs the Department to value overhead, 
general and administrative expenses (``SG&A''), and profit using non-
proprietary information gathered from producers of identical or 
comparable merchandise in the surrogate country. In this administrative 
review, Petitioner placed the 2008-2009 financial statements on the 
record for one Indian producer of aluminum products - National 
Aluminium Company Limited (``NALCO''), and one producer of zinc 
products - Hindustan Zinc Limited (``Hindustan Zinc''). TMI placed the 
2008-2009 financial statements on the record for five Indian producers 
of aluminum products: Madras Aluminum Company Ltd. (``MALCO''), 
HINDALCO Industries Limited (``HINDALCO''), Century Extrusions Ltd. 
(``Century''), Sudal Industries Ltd. (``Sudal''), and Bhoruka Aluminum 
(``Bhoruka'').
    For the following reasons, we have elected not to rely on the 2008-
2009 audited financial statements of MALCO, HINDALCO, Century and 
Bhoruka as surrogate financial statements under section 351.408(c)(4). 
First, we elected not to rely on MALCO's audited financial statements 
because MALCO suspended production of aluminum and alumina in November 
2008, seven months into its fiscal year (and the POR).\52\ In addition, 
since it suspended aluminum and alumina production, it switched the use 
of its power generation from captive consumption to external sales.\53\ 
As a result, the financial statements do not reflect the cost

[[Page 20823]]

experience of producing a comparable product to the subject merchandise 
for five months of the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See The Madras Aluminum Company Limited, 49th Annual report 
2008-09, at 4, contained in TMI's Surrogate Value Comments at 
Exhibit SV-11D. MALCO's fiscal year coincides with the POR.
    \53\ See id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we have elected not to rely on the financial statements of 
HINDALCO, NALCO, Century and Bhoruka because the record indicates that 
during this period these companies received subsidies the Department 
has previously determined to be countervailable. Consistent with 
Department practice, we do not use financial statements of a company 
that we have reason to believe or suspect may have received subsidies, 
where there are other sufficient reliable and representative data on 
the record for purposes of calculating the surrogate financial ratios, 
because the financial statements of companies receiving actionable 
subsidies are less representative of the financial experience of the 
relevant industry than the ratios derived from financial statements 
that do not contain evidence of subsidization.\54\ In this case, 
HINDALCO's 2008-2009 financial statements indicate that HINDALCO 
received benefits under the Duty Free Import Entitlement Scheme (``EPCG 
Scheme'').\55\ Similarly, NALCO's financial statements indicate that 
NALCO received benefits under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (``DEPB 
Premium'')\56\ and obtained EPCG licenses.\57\ Century's audited 
financial statements demonstrated that it also received benefits under 
the EPCG scheme.\58\ India's EPCG Scheme and DEPB Premiums each have 
been found by the Department to provide a countervailable subsidy.\59\ 
Third, we rejected Bhoruka's audited financial statements because they 
did not show a profit for the 2008-2009 fiscal year.\60\ The Department 
has an established practice of not relying on financial statements that 
are incomplete, or that indicate that the company is unprofitable, or 
designated as ``sick'' by the Indian government.\61\ Fourth, we have 
determined not to use the 2008-2009 financial statements of Hindustan 
Zinc because Hindustan Zinc has four captive mines, which indicates 
that it is at a much higher level of integration than TMI's supplier 
and so would not accurately reflect TMI's supplier's experience.\62\ 
The Department also has an established practice of rejecting financial 
statements of surrogate producers whose production process or 
integration level is not comparable to the respondent's when better 
information is available.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008) (``OTR Tires'') 
at Comment 17A; Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Final Results and Rescission, in Part, 
of 2004/2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper 
Reviews, 72 FR 52049, (September 12, 2007) at Comment 2, citing 
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Final Results And Rescission, In Part, of 2004/2005 
Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 19174 
(April 17, 2007) (``Crawfish from the PRC''), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
    \55\ See Annual Report 2008-2009, Hindalco Industries Limited, 
at 91 contained in TMI's Surrogate Value Comments at Exhibit SV-11E.
    \56\ See 28th Annual Report 2008-2009, National Aluminium 
Company Limited, at 71 contained in Petitioner's Surrogate Value 
Comments at Exhibit 5.
    \57\ See id. at 72.
    \58\ See Century Extrusion Limited, Twenty First Annual Report 
2008-2009, at pages 35 and 41, in TMI's Surrogate Value Comments at 
Exhibit SV-11B.
    \59\ See, e.g., Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India: 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 64 FR 61592 (November 12, 1999); unchanged in 
Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India: Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review 65 FR 31515 (May 18, 
2000); see also http://ia.ita.doc.gov/esel/eselframes.html; and 
Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 
Final Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Certain Lined 
Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45034 (August 8, 2006), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Benchmarks for 
Loans and Discount Rate.''
    \60\ See 29th Annual Report 2008-09, Bhoruka Aluminium Limited, 
at 31 contained in TMI's Surrogate Value Comments at Exhibit SV-11C.
    \61\ See OTR Tires at Comment 17A.
    \62\ See Annual Report 2008-09, Hindustan Zinc Limited, at 10, 
contained in Petitioner's Surrogate Value Comments at Exhibit 6.
    \63\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value: Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of 
China, 70 FR 24,502 (May 10, 2005) at Comment 3 citing e.g., Notice 
of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People's 
Republic of China, 66 FR 22183, 22193 (May 3, 2001); Persulfates 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 6836 (February 9, 2005) (``PRC 
Persulfates'') and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, we have preliminarily determined to use the 2008-2009 
audited financial statements of Sudal as the basis of the financial 
ratios in this review. Sudal is a secondary aluminum extrusion 
manufacturer that used, purchased, or imported aluminum metals as raw 
materials to manufacture aluminum extrusions and fabricated 
products.\64\ Although the aluminum extrusions and fabricated products 
produced by Sudal require more processing than the magnesium metal 
ingots and chippings produced by TMI's producer, Sudal begins its 
respective manufacturing process at a similar level of production as 
TMI's producer. Moreover, Sudal earned a profit,\65\ and there is no 
record evidence to indicate that it received benefits that the 
Department has determined to be countervailable.\66\ Further, its 
audited financial statements are complete and are sufficiently detailed 
to disaggregate materials, labor, overhead, and SG&A expenses.\67\ 
While the Department has not previously determined whether the 
production process for magnesium metal is similar to that of extruded 
aluminum products for purposes of calculating surrogate financial 
ratios, we find that the evidence currently on the record does not 
establish that it must be considered as too dissimilar. Thus, we 
preliminarily find that the audited financial statements of Sudal 
constitutes the best information available on the record on which to 
base surrogate financial ratios in this review. Accordingly, we invite 
parties to provide additional information and explanation on the record 
concerning the comparability of the manufacturing process for magnesium 
metal and extruded aluminum products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See Annual Report 2008-2009, Sudal Industries Limited, at 
33 contained in TMI's Surrogate Value Comments at Exhibit SV-11A.
    \65\ See Annual Report 2008-2009, Sudal Industries Limited, at 
19 contained in TMI's Surrogate Value Comments at Exhibit SV-11A. 
See also Century Extrusions Ltd., at 33 contained in TMI's Surrogate 
Value Comments at Exhibit SV-11B.
    \66\ See id.
    \67\  See id. See also the appropriate schedules to the 
financial statements as indicated on page 33 for Century and page 19 
for Sudal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a complete listing of all the inputs and a detailed discussion 
about our surrogate value selections, see the Factor Valuation 
Memorandum.

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.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we intend to verify 
the information from TMI upon which we will rely in making our final 
determination.

Weighted-Average Dumping Margins

    The preliminary weighted-average dumping margin is as follows:

                      Magnesium metal from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                      Exporter                              Margin
                                                         (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tianjin Magnesium International Co. Ltd.............               0.00%
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 20824]]

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.\68\ If a hearing is requested, the 
Department will announce the hearing schedule at a later date. 
Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no 
later than seven days after the release of the verification report 
issued in this review.\69\ Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written 
comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be 
filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the case 
briefs.\70\ Further, we request that parties submitting written 
comments provide the Department with an additional copy of those 
comments on diskette or CD ROM. The Department intends to issue the 
final results of this administrative review, which will include the 
results of its analysis of issues raised in any comments, and at a 
hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, 
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
    \69\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).
    \70\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance 
with the final results of this review.\71\ For assessment purposes, we 
calculated importer- or customer specific assessment rates for 
merchandise subject to this review. We calculated an ad valorem rate 
for each importer or customer by dividing the total dumping margins for 
reviewed sales to that party by the total entered values associated 
with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this 
basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting ad valorem rate 
against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise. Where 
appropriate, we calculated a per-unit rate for each importer or 
customer by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to 
that party by the total sales quantity associated with those 
transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this basis, we 
will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate against the 
entered quantity of the subject merchandise. Where an importer- (or 
customer-) specific assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 
percent) in accordance with the requirement of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), 
the Department will instruct CBP to assess that importer's (or 
customer's) entries of subject merchandise without regard to 
antidumping duties. We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries 
containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the 
PRC-wide rate we determine in the final results of this review. The 
Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this 
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for 
shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For TMI, which has a 
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the 
final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de 
minimis, zero cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously 
investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above 
that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate; (3) 
for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found 
to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the 
PRC-wide rate of 141.49 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of 
subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash 
deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that 
supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

    Dated: April 13, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-9178 Filed 4-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S