Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Superalloy Degassed Chromium From Japan, 16220-16223 [E5-1399]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
16220
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 30, 2005 / Notices
2004, the Abitibi Group contends that
PFS should be subject to the Abitibi
Group cash deposit rate, because it is
controlled by ACCC, which owns the
majority of PFS’ shares, and because it
has production facilities similar or
identical to other members of the
Abitibi Group as well as intertwined
sales processes.
On June 1, 2004, ACCC entered into
a three-way agreement with Cooperative
Forestiere Laterriere (CFL) and Les
Placements H.N.M.A. Inc. (HNMA), its
existing partner in Scierie Saguenay
Ltee (SSL), to form PFS. ACCC is the
main shareholder in PFS. PFS owns and
operates four sawmills located in the
Saguenay region of Quebec, of which
two 1 were previously wholly-owned by
ACCC and consequently shared the
Abitibi Group’s rate, one 2 was 50
percent owned by the ACCC and 50
percent by HNMA, and one 3 was owned
by CFL.
In antidumping duty changed
circumstances reviews involving a
change in ownership, the Department
typically examines several factors
including, but not limited to, changes
in: (1) Management; (2) production
facilities; (3) customer base; and (4)
supplier relationships. See Brass Sheet
and Strip from Canada: Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Administrative
Review, 57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13,
1992).
While we recognize that this is not a
typical successor-in-interest situation,
since the Abitibi Group has not ceased
to exist or been substantially changed,
we believe that the factors analyzed as
part of a successor-in-interest finding
are relevant to our determination of the
proper cash deposit rate for Abitibi’s
new affiliate, PFS.
Based on our review of the
questionnaire response, we
preliminarily find that PFS functions as
part of the Abitibi Group. Indeed, as a
result of the agreement that formed PFS,
significant components of the Abitibi
Group’s management, production
facilities, supplier relationships, and
customer base have been incorporated
into PFS. PFS’s Board of Directors is
predominantly composed of directors
appointed by the Abitibi Group (three
appointed by ACCC, one appointed by
CFL, and one appointed by HNMA). The
Abitibi Group appointed board members
also serve as President, Secretary and
1 On
May 31, 2004, PFS purchased St. Fulgence
and Petit Saguenay sawmills from ACCC, via an
asset purchase agreement.
2 Scierie Saguenay Ltee.
3 On May 17, 2004, through an asset purchase
agreement, PFS purchased the Laterriere sawmill
and related assets from Cooperative Forestiere
Laterriere (CFL), which had been insolvent.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:07 Mar 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
Treasurer of PFS. Furthermore, PFS
employs former ACCC employees of St.
Fulgence and Petit Saguenay sawmills
who continue working from the same
Abitibi Group facilities.
With regard to production facilities,
as noted above, two of the mills as well
as 50 percent of the SSL mill already
belonged to the Abitibi Group.
Production from the Abitibi mills,
which accounts for the bulk of PFS’s
production, was included in
determining the Abitibi Group’s current
cash deposit rate.
In terms of customer base, PFS’s price
setting, channel of distributions and
sales functions have been assigned to
ACI, the sales arm of the Abitibi Group.
ACI sells the majority of the softwood
lumber produced by all four of PFS’s
sawmills, including all sales of PFS
softwood lumber to the United States.
Therefore, PFS’s customer base is
largely that of ACI. Finally, no
information on the record indicates any
substantial change in supplier
relationships of the mills, whose
production as stated earlier, is largely
from mills already owned by the Abitibi
Group.
When PFS purchased two sawmills
previously owned by the Abitibi Group,
it began to function as a member of the
Abitibi Group. PFS’s ownership,
management, production facilities,
supplier relationships, customer base,
sales practices and facilities combine
important elements of the Abitibi
Group. Therefore, we preliminarily find
PFS to be a member of the Abitibi Group
and entitled to the Abitibi Group cash
deposit rate.
If the above preliminary results are
affirmed in the Department’s final
results, the cash deposit rate from this
changed circumstances review will
apply to all entries of the subject
merchandise entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the date of publication of the final
results of this changed circumstances
review. See Granular
Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review, 68 FR
25327 (May 12, 2003). This deposit rate
shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next
administrative review in which Abitibi
Group participates.
Public Comment
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 20 days of publication of
this notice. 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any
hearing, if requested, will be held 34
days after the date of publication of this
notice, or the first working day
thereafter. Interested parties may submit
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
case briefs not later than 20 days after
the date of publication of this notice. 19
CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs,
which must be limited to issues raised
in such briefs, must be filed not later
than 37 days after the date of
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR
351.309(d). Parties who submit
arguments are requested to submit with
the argument (1) a statement of the
issue, (2) a brief summary of the
argument, and (3) a table of authorities.
We will issue the final results of this
changed circumstances review no later
than May 23, 2005.
This notice is in accordance with
sections 751(b) and 777(i)(1) of the Act,
and section 351.221(c)(3)(i) of the
Department’s regulations.
Dated: March 24, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–1402 Filed 3–29–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–588–866]
Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigation: Superalloy Degassed
Chromium From Japan
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Dates: March 30, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Lehman or Minoo Hatten, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0180 or (202) 482–
1690, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
The Petition
On March 4, 2005, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) received a
petition on imports of superalloy
degassed chromium from Japan filed in
proper form by Eramet Marietta Inc. and
Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and
Energy Workers International Union
(the petitioners). On March 10, 2005, the
Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire requesting additional
information and clarification of certain
areas of the petition. The Department
also requested additional information in
March 16, 2005, and March 17, 2005,
telephone calls with counsel to the
petitioners. See Memoranda from
Meredith Wood through Norbert O.
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 30, 2005 / Notices
Gannon to the File dated March 16,
2005, and March 17, 2005. The
petitioners filed supplements to the
petition on March 7, 2005, March 14,
2005, March 18, 2005, and March 22,
2005.
In accordance with section 732(b) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), the petitioners allege that imports
of superalloy degassed chromium are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value
within the meaning of section 731 of the
Act and that such imports are materially
injuring and threaten to injure an
industry in the United States.
The Department finds that the
petitioners filed this petition on behalf
of the domestic industry because they
are interested parties as defined in
section 771(9)(c) of the Act and the
petitioners have demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the
investigation that the petitioners are
requesting the Department to initiate
(see ‘‘Determination of Industry Support
for the Petition’’ below).
Scope of Investigation
The product covered by this
investigation is all forms, sizes, and
grades of superalloy degassed chromium
from Japan. Superalloy degassed
chromium is a high-purity form of
chrome metal that generally contains at
least 99.5 percent, but less than 99.95
percent, chromium. Superalloy
degassed chromium contains very low
levels of certain gaseous elements and
other impurities (typically no more than
0.005 percent nitrogen, 0.005 percent
sulphur, 0.05 percent oxygen, 0.01
percent aluminum, 0.05 percent silicon,
and 0.35 percent iron). Superalloy
degassed chromium is generally sold in
briquetted form, as ‘‘pellets’’ or
‘‘compacts,’’ which typically are 11⁄2
inches × 1 inch × 1 inch or smaller in
size and have a smooth surface.
Superalloy degassed chromium is
currently classifiable under subheading
8112.21.00 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
This investigation covers all chromium
meeting the above specifications for
superalloy degassed chromium
regardless of tariff classification.
Certain higher-purity and lowerpurity chromium products are excluded
from the scope of this investigation.
Specifically, the investigation does not
cover electronics-grade chromium,
which contains a higher percentage of
chromium (typically not less than 99.95
percent), a much lower level of iron
(less than 0.05 percent), and lower
levels of other impurities than
superalloy degassed chromium. The
investigation also does not cover
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:07 Mar 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
‘‘vacuum melt grade’’ (VMG) chromium,
which normally contains at least 99.4
percent chromium and contains a higher
level of one or more impurities
(nitrogen, sulphur, oxygen, aluminum
and/or silicon) than specified above for
superalloy degassed chromium.
Although the HTSUS subheading is
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
scope of this investigation is dispositive.
During our review of the petition, we
discussed the scope with the petitioners
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
publication of this notice. Comments
should be addressed to Import
Administration’s Central Records Unit
at Room 1870, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
The period of scope consultations is
intended to provide the Department
with ample opportunity to consider all
comments and consult with parties
prior to the issuance of the preliminary
determination.
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires
that a petition be filed on behalf of the
domestic industry. Section 732(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 (1) at least 25
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product and (2) 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.
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 the 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) is responsible
for determining whether ‘‘the domestic
industry’’ has been injured and must
also determine what constitutes a
domestic like product in order to define
the industry. While the Department and
the ITC must apply the same statutory
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16221
definition regarding the domestic like
product, they do so for different
purposes and pursuant to separate and
distinct authority. See section 771(10) of
the Act. In addition, the Department’s
determination is subject to limitations of
time and information. Although this
may result in different definitions of the
domestic like product, such differences
do not render the decision of either
agency contrary to law.1
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 definition of
domestic like product, the petitioners
do not offer a definition of domestic like
product distinct from the scope of the
investigation. Based on our analysis of
the information presented by the
petitioners, we have determined that
there is a single domestic like product,
superalloy degassed chromium, which
is defined in the ‘‘Scope of
Investigation’’ section above, and we
have analyzed industry support in terms
of the domestic like product.
We received no opposition to this
petition. The petitioners account for 100
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product, and the
requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A)(i)
are met. Accordingly, the Department
determines that the petition was filed on
behalf of the domestic industry within
the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the
Act. See Attachment I of the March 24,
2005, Initiation Checklist (Initiation
Checklist) on file in the Central Records
Unit, Room B–099 of the Department of
Commerce.
Period of Investigation
The anticipated period of
investigation is January 1, 2004, through
December 31, 2004.
U.S. Price and Normal Value
The following is a description of the
allegation of sales at less than fair value
upon which the Department based its
decision to initiate this investigation.
The sources of data for the deductions
and adjustments relating to U.S. price
and normal value are discussed in
greater detail in the Initiation Checklist.
1 See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp.
2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. v.
United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 642–44 (CIT 1988).
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
16222
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 30, 2005 / Notices
Should the need arise to use any of this
information as facts available under
section 776 of the Act, we may
reexamine the information and revise
the margin calculation, if appropriate.
The petition identified one producer
of superalloy degassed chromium in
Japan. See March 4, 2005, petition at
page 24. Although the petitioners
provide estimates of U.S. price based on
U.S. import data (from the U.S. Bureau
of the Census) and Japanese export data
(see petition at pages 25–28 and Exhibit
7B), we have relied on a price quote
provided by the petitioners (see petition
at pages 28–29 and Exhibits 7B and
7D(i) and supplement to the petition
dated March 14, 2005, at page 5 and
Attachment 4). This price quote is for
superalloy degassed chromium from
Japan sold to a large customer in the
United States during 2004. It is for the
subject merchandise which is
comparable to the merchandise in the
home-market price quote provided by
the petitioners and in the constructed
value (CV) the petitioners calculated
(see supplement to the petition dated
March 18, 2005, at pages 1–3).
The petitioners deducted an amount
for U.S. customs duty and freight and
five percent for selling expenses in the
United States from the price quote on
which we relied. We examined the
information provided regarding U.S.
price and have determined that it
represents information reasonably
available to the petitioners and have
reviewed it for adequacy and accuracy.
See Initiation Checklist.
To calculate normal value, the
petitioners obtained information
regarding the price at which the
Japanese producer identified in the
petition is believed to have sold
superalloy degassed chromium to an
end-user in Japan in 2004. The price
obtained was inclusive of delivery
charges and exclusive of taxes. We
reviewed the normal-value information
the petitioners provided and have
determined that it represents
information reasonably available to the
petitioners. We have also reviewed it for
adequacy and accuracy. See Initiation
Checklist.
The petitioners also compared the
home-market price to Eramet’s cost of
production (COP), adjusted for known
cost differences between Japan and the
United States, to support a sales-belowcost allegation. The Statement of
Administrative Action (SAA)
accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act states that an allegation
of sales below COP need not be specific
to individual exporters or producers.
See SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316 at 833
(1994). The SAA states that ‘‘Commerce
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:07 Mar 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
will consider allegations of below-cost
sales in the aggregate for a foreign
country, just as Commerce currently
considers allegations of sales at less
than fair value on a country-wide basis
for purposes of initiating an
antidumping investigation.’’ Id.
Further, the SAA provides that the
‘‘new section 773(b)(2)(A) retains the
current requirement that Commerce
have ‘reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect’ that below cost sales have
occurred before initiating such an
investigation. ‘Reasonable grounds’
* * * exist when an interested party
provides specific factual information on
costs and prices, observed or
constructed, indicating that sales in the
foreign market in question are at belowcost prices.’’ Id.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the
Act, COP consists of the cost of
manufacture (COM) and selling, general,
and administrative (SG&A) expenses
(including financial expenses). The
petitioners calculated COP based on
Eramet’s own experience as a U.S.
producer during 2004 and its knowledge
of the particular production processes
used by the Japanese producer, adjusted
for known differences between costs
incurred to manufacture superalloy
degassed chromium in the United States
and in Japan. The publicly available
data the petitioners used were
contemporaneous with the prospective
POI. See Initiation Checklist.
Based upon a comparison of the
home-market price of the foreign like
product to the calculated COP of the
product, we find reasonable grounds to
believe or suspect that sales of the
foreign like product were made below
the COP within the meaning of section
773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly,
the Department is initiating a countrywide cost investigation.
Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4) and
773(e) of the Act, the petitioners
calculated normal value based on CV.
Consistent with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii)
of the Act, the petitioners included in
CV an amount for profit. For profit, the
petitioners relied upon amounts
reported in the 2004 consolidated
financial statements of JFE Material Co.,
Ltd., the potential respondent’s parent
company.
We reviewed the CV information the
petitioners provided and have
determined that it represents
information reasonably available to the
petitioners.
Fair-Value Comparison
Based on a comparison of a U.S. price
quote to adjusted CV, the dumping
margin is 129.32 percent for superalloy
degassed chromium from Japan.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Therefore, based on the data provided
by the petitioners, there is reason to
believe that imports of superalloy
degassed chromium are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at
less than fair value.
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
The petitioners allege that the U.S.
industry producing the domestic like
product is being materially injured and
is threatened with material injury by
reason of the imports of the subject
merchandise sold at less than normal
value. The petitioners contend that the
industry’s injured condition is
evidenced by reduced market share, lost
sales, reduced production, capacity, and
capacity utilization rates, decreased U.S.
shipments and inventories, decline in
prices, lost revenue, reduced
employment, decrease in capital
expenditures, decreased investment in
research and development, and decline
in financial performance.
These allegations are supported by
relevant evidence including import
data, lost sales, and pricing information.
We assessed the allegations and
supporting evidence regarding material
injury, threat of material injury, and
causation and we have determined that
these allegations are supported by
accurate and adequate evidence and
meet the statutory requirements for
initiation. See Initiation Checklist.
Initiation of Antidumping Investigation
Based upon the examination of the
petition on superalloy degassed
chromium from Japan and other
information reasonably available to the
Department, the Department finds that
the petition meets the requirements of
section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are
initiating an antidumping duty
investigation to determine whether
imports of superalloy degassed
chromium from Japan are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at
less than fair value. Unless postponed,
we will make our preliminary
determination no later than 140 days
after the date of this initiation.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section
732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the
public version of the petition has been
provided to the representatives of the
government of Japan. We will attempt to
provide a copy of the public version of
the petition to the producer named in
the petition.
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 30, 2005 / Notices
International Trade Commission
Notification
We have notified the ITC of our
initiation, as required by section 732(d)
of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the
International Trade Commission
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
no later than April 18, 2005, whether
there is a reasonable indication that
imports of superalloy degassed
chromium are causing material injury,
or threatening to cause material injury,
to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC
determination will result in the
investigation being terminated;
otherwise, this 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: March 24, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–1399 Filed 3–29–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–570–894
Notice of Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less than
Fair Value and Antidumping Duty
Order: Certain Tissue Paper Products
from the People’s Republic of China
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 30, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kit
L. Rudd, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1385.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
AMENDMENT TO FINAL
DETERMINATION
In accordance with sections 735(d)
and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended, (‘‘the Act’’), on February
14, 2005, the Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) published its final
determination of sales at less than fair
value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the investigation of
certain tissue paper products from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Tissue
Paper Products from the People’s
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:07 Mar 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
Republic of China, 70 FR 7475
(February 14, 2005) (‘‘Final
Determination’’) and corresponding
‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’
dated February 3, 2005.
On February 14, 2005, Cleo Inc.,
Crystal Creative Products, Inc., and
Marvel Products, Inc. (collectively,
‘‘Importers’’) timely filed allegations
that the Department made ministerial
errors in its Final Determination with
respect to calculation of the surrogate
profit financial ratio, application of the
overhead financial ratio and use of
surrogate values.
On February 22, 2005, the Petitioners1
filed rebuttal comments to ministerial
error allegations submitted by the
Importers. On February 24, 2005, the
Importers filed comments responding to
the Petitioners’ February 22, 2005,
rebuttals. On March 4, 2005, pursuant to
19 CFR 351.224, the Department
rejected the Importers’ February 24,
2005 submission of further rebuttal
comments. See Letter from Alex
Villanueva, Program Manager, China/
NME Unit, Office 9 to Importers
Regarding Ministerial Error Allegation
Rebuttal Comments, dated March 4,
2005.
A ministerial error is defined as an
error in addition, subtraction, or other
arithmetic function, clerical error
resulting from inaccurate copying,
duplication, or the like, and any other
similar type of unintentional error
which the Department considers
ministerial. See 19 CFR 351.224(f).
After analyzing the Importers’
comments and Petitioners’ rebuttal
comments, we have determined, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), that
we made no ministerial errors in the
calculations we performed for the Final
Determination. For a detailed discussion
of these ministerial errors, as well as the
Department’s analysis, see Antidumping
Duty Investigation of Certain Tissue
Paper Products from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘China’’): Analysis
of Allegations of Ministerial Errors,
dated March 16, 2005.
In addition, on February 22, 2005, at
the direction of the National Import
Specialist, the Department has added
the following Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) classifications to the listing
of HTS subheadings contained in the
Final Determination: 4804.31.1000;
4804.31.2000; 4804.31.4020;
1 Seaman Paper Company of Massachusetts Inc.;
Eagle Tissue LLC; Flower City Tissue Mills Co.;
Garlock Printing & Converting, Inc.; Paper Service
Ltd.; Putney Paper Co., Ltd.; and the Paper, AlliedIndustrial, Chemical and Energy Workers
International Union AFL-CIO, CLC (collectively
‘‘Petitioners’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16223
4804.31.4040; 4804.31.6000;
4805.91.1090; 4805.91.5000; and
4805.91.7000.
Finally, in the Final Determination,
we inadvertently identified Section A
Respondent Anhui Light Industrial
Import & Export Co., Ltd. (‘‘Anhui
Light’’) as receiving a separate rate,
although the Department had
determined that Anhui Light did not
meet the Separate Rates criteria. See
Preliminary Determination: Certain
Tissue Paper Products From The
People’s Republic of China Separate
Rates for Exporters, dated September 14,
2004 at 20. We also neglected to include
Section A Respondent BA Marketing &
Industrial Co., Ltd. (‘‘BA Marketing’’)
which qualified for and received a
separate rate.
Therefore, we are correcting the Final
Determination of sales at LTFV in the
antidumping duty investigation of
certain tissue paper products from the
PRC. The revised scope and corrected
list of Section A Respondents are listed
below.
Scope of the Order
The tissue paper products subject to
this order are cut–to-length sheets of
tissue paper having a basis weight not
exceeding 29 grams per square meter.
Tissue paper products subject to this
order may or may not be bleached, dye–
colored, surface–colored, glazed, surface
decorated or printed, sequined,
crinkled, embossed, and/or die cut. The
tissue paper subject to this order is in
the form of cut–to-length sheets of tissue
paper with a width equal to or greater
than one–half (0.5) inch. Subject tissue
paper may be flat or folded, and may be
packaged by banding or wrapping with
paper or film, by placing in plastic or
film bags, and/or by placing in boxes for
distribution and use by the ultimate
consumer. Packages of tissue paper
subject to this order may consist solely
of tissue paper of one color and/or style,
or may contain multiple colors and/or
styles.
The merchandise subject to this order
does not have specific classification
numbers assigned to them under the
HTSUS. Subject merchandise may be
under one or more of several different
subheadings, including: 4802.30;
4802.54; 4802.61; 4802.62; 4802.69;
4804.31.1000; 4804.31.2000;
4804.31.4020; 4804.31.4040;
4804.31.6000; 4804.39; 4805.91.1090;
4805.91.5000; 4805.91.7000; 4806.40;
4808.30; 4808.90; 4811.90; 4823.90;
4820.50.00; 4802.90.00; 4805.91.90;
9505.90.40. The tariff classifications are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes; however, the written
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 30, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16220-16223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-1399]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-866]
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Superalloy Degassed
Chromium From Japan
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Dates: March 30, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lehman or Minoo Hatten, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-0180 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On March 4, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
received a petition on imports of superalloy degassed chromium from
Japan filed in proper form by Eramet Marietta Inc. and Paper, Allied-
Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union (the
petitioners). On March 10, 2005, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire requesting additional information and clarification of
certain areas of the petition. The Department also requested additional
information in March 16, 2005, and March 17, 2005, telephone calls with
counsel to the petitioners. See Memoranda from Meredith Wood through
Norbert O.
[[Page 16221]]
Gannon to the File dated March 16, 2005, and March 17, 2005. The
petitioners filed supplements to the petition on March 7, 2005, March
14, 2005, March 18, 2005, and March 22, 2005.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of superalloy
degassed chromium are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United
States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the
Act and that such imports are materially injuring and threaten to
injure an industry in the United States.
The Department finds that the petitioners filed this petition on
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as
defined in section 771(9)(c) of the Act and the petitioners have
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the
investigation that the petitioners are requesting the Department to
initiate (see ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition''
below).
Scope of Investigation
The product covered by this investigation is all forms, sizes, and
grades of superalloy degassed chromium from Japan. Superalloy degassed
chromium is a high-purity form of chrome metal that generally contains
at least 99.5 percent, but less than 99.95 percent, chromium.
Superalloy degassed chromium contains very low levels of certain
gaseous elements and other impurities (typically no more than 0.005
percent nitrogen, 0.005 percent sulphur, 0.05 percent oxygen, 0.01
percent aluminum, 0.05 percent silicon, and 0.35 percent iron).
Superalloy degassed chromium is generally sold in briquetted form, as
``pellets'' or ``compacts,'' which typically are 1\1/2\ inches x 1 inch
x 1 inch or smaller in size and have a smooth surface. Superalloy
degassed chromium is currently classifiable under subheading 8112.21.00
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). This
investigation covers all chromium meeting the above specifications for
superalloy degassed chromium regardless of tariff classification.
Certain higher-purity and lower-purity chromium products are
excluded from the scope of this investigation. Specifically, the
investigation does not cover electronics-grade chromium, which contains
a higher percentage of chromium (typically not less than 99.95
percent), a much lower level of iron (less than 0.05 percent), and
lower levels of other impurities than superalloy degassed chromium. The
investigation also does not cover ``vacuum melt grade'' (VMG) chromium,
which normally contains at least 99.4 percent chromium and contains a
higher level of one or more impurities (nitrogen, sulphur, oxygen,
aluminum and/or silicon) than specified above for superalloy degassed
chromium.
Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this
investigation is dispositive.
During our review of the petition, we discussed the scope with the
petitioners 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 publication
of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's
Central Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The period
of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample
opportunity to consider all comments and consult with parties prior to
the issuance of the preliminary determination.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(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 (1) at least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and (2)
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.
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 the 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) is
responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has been
injured and must also determine what constitutes a domestic like
product in order to define the industry. While the Department and the
ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic
like product, they do so for different purposes and pursuant to
separate and distinct authority. See section 771(10) of the Act. In
addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of
time and information. Although this may result in different definitions
of the domestic like product, such differences do not render the
decision of either agency contrary to law.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT
2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639,
642-44 (CIT 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 definition of domestic like product, the
petitioners do not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct
from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the
information presented by the petitioners, we have determined that there
is a single domestic like product, superalloy degassed chromium, which
is defined in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section above, and we have
analyzed industry support in terms of the domestic like product.
We received no opposition to this petition. The petitioners account
for 100 percent of the total production of the domestic like product,
and the requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) are met. Accordingly,
the Department determines that the petition was filed on behalf of the
domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
See Attachment I of the March 24, 2005, Initiation Checklist
(Initiation Checklist) on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099
of the Department of Commerce.
Period of Investigation
The anticipated period of investigation is January 1, 2004, through
December 31, 2004.
U.S. Price and Normal Value
The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to
initiate this investigation. The sources of data for the deductions and
adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value are discussed in
greater detail in the Initiation Checklist.
[[Page 16222]]
Should the need arise to use any of this information as facts available
under section 776 of the Act, we may reexamine the information and
revise the margin calculation, if appropriate.
The petition identified one producer of superalloy degassed
chromium in Japan. See March 4, 2005, petition at page 24. Although the
petitioners provide estimates of U.S. price based on U.S. import data
(from the U.S. Bureau of the Census) and Japanese export data (see
petition at pages 25-28 and Exhibit 7B), we have relied on a price
quote provided by the petitioners (see petition at pages 28-29 and
Exhibits 7B and 7D(i) and supplement to the petition dated March 14,
2005, at page 5 and Attachment 4). This price quote is for superalloy
degassed chromium from Japan sold to a large customer in the United
States during 2004. It is for the subject merchandise which is
comparable to the merchandise in the home-market price quote provided
by the petitioners and in the constructed value (CV) the petitioners
calculated (see supplement to the petition dated March 18, 2005, at
pages 1-3).
The petitioners deducted an amount for U.S. customs duty and
freight and five percent for selling expenses in the United States from
the price quote on which we relied. We examined the information
provided regarding U.S. price and have determined that it represents
information reasonably available to the petitioners and have reviewed
it for adequacy and accuracy. See Initiation Checklist.
To calculate normal value, the petitioners obtained information
regarding the price at which the Japanese producer identified in the
petition is believed to have sold superalloy degassed chromium to an
end-user in Japan in 2004. The price obtained was inclusive of delivery
charges and exclusive of taxes. We reviewed the normal-value
information the petitioners provided and have determined that it
represents information reasonably available to the petitioners. We have
also reviewed it for adequacy and accuracy. See Initiation Checklist.
The petitioners also compared the home-market price to Eramet's
cost of production (COP), adjusted for known cost differences between
Japan and the United States, to support a sales-below-cost allegation.
The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act states that an allegation of sales below COP need
not be specific to individual exporters or producers. See SAA, H.R.
Doc. No. 103-316 at 833 (1994). The SAA states that ``Commerce will
consider allegations of below-cost sales in the aggregate for a foreign
country, just as Commerce currently considers allegations of sales at
less than fair value on a country-wide basis for purposes of initiating
an antidumping investigation.'' Id.
Further, the SAA provides that the ``new section 773(b)(2)(A)
retains the current requirement that Commerce have `reasonable grounds
to believe or suspect' that below cost sales have occurred before
initiating such an investigation. `Reasonable grounds' * * * exist when
an interested party provides specific factual information on costs and
prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the foreign
market in question are at below-cost prices.'' Id.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost
of manufacture (COM) and selling, general, and administrative (SG&A)
expenses (including financial expenses). The petitioners calculated COP
based on Eramet's own experience as a U.S. producer during 2004 and its
knowledge of the particular production processes used by the Japanese
producer, adjusted for known differences between costs incurred to
manufacture superalloy degassed chromium in the United States and in
Japan. The publicly available data the petitioners used were
contemporaneous with the prospective POI. See Initiation Checklist.
Based upon a comparison of the home-market price of the foreign
like product to the calculated COP of the product, we find reasonable
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product
were made below the COP within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i)
of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating a country-wide
cost investigation.
Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the Act, the
petitioners calculated normal value based on CV. Consistent with
section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, the petitioners included in CV an
amount for profit. For profit, the petitioners relied upon amounts
reported in the 2004 consolidated financial statements of JFE Material
Co., Ltd., the potential respondent's parent company.
We reviewed the CV information the petitioners provided and have
determined that it represents information reasonably available to the
petitioners.
Fair-Value Comparison
Based on a comparison of a U.S. price quote to adjusted CV, the
dumping margin is 129.32 percent for superalloy degassed chromium from
Japan. Therefore, based on the data provided by the petitioners, there
is reason to believe that imports of superalloy degassed chromium are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair
value.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the
domestic like product is being materially injured and is threatened
with material injury by reason of the imports of the subject
merchandise sold at less than normal value. The petitioners contend
that the industry's injured condition is evidenced by reduced market
share, lost sales, reduced production, capacity, and capacity
utilization rates, decreased U.S. shipments and inventories, decline in
prices, lost revenue, reduced employment, decrease in capital
expenditures, decreased investment in research and development, and
decline in financial performance.
These allegations are supported by relevant evidence including
import data, lost sales, and pricing information. We assessed the
allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat
of material injury, and causation and we have determined that these
allegations are supported by accurate and adequate evidence and meet
the statutory requirements for initiation. See Initiation Checklist.
Initiation of Antidumping Investigation
Based upon the examination of the petition on superalloy degassed
chromium from Japan and other information reasonably available to the
Department, the Department finds that the petition meets the
requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an
antidumping duty investigation to determine whether imports of
superalloy degassed chromium from Japan are being, or are likely to be,
sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless postponed, we
will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after
the date of this initiation.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the
public version of the petition has been provided to the representatives
of the government of Japan. We will attempt to provide a copy of the
public version of the petition to the producer named in the petition.
[[Page 16223]]
International Trade Commission Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
732(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the International Trade Commission
The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than April 18, 2005,
whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of superalloy
degassed chromium are causing material injury, or threatening to cause
material injury, to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will
result in the investigation being terminated; otherwise, this
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: March 24, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-1399 Filed 3-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
